Dress codes passé?

August 7, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
From managing editor Elizabeth Brockett:

The topic of dress codes recently came up in our office again because of a notice we received about a conference to assist in creating and enforcing a dress code. One section touted “Solutions to your toughest appearance policy challenges” with questions such as: Must you allow men to have long hair if women can? Can the employer dictate styles of dress, hair, jewelry? Can you force a woman to wear a skirt or dress to work?

I used to think if people just used their common sense they’d be fine regardless of the situation. I’ve since learned that some people don’t have any common sense. I admit I’m a little old school … not because I believe there should be strict dress codes, which I do not, but because of my upbringing and my age. My grandmother used to talk about the formal dinners she’d attend with my grandfather, who was a U.S. Navy commander: Women wore beautiful dresses or gowns and gloves and the men in full uniform. But even when they’d entertain at home, the women wore dresses … even during cookouts! And my mom was in the Navy back when they taught them to be ladies first and foremost.

When I was in first and second grades, girls were not allowed to wear pants to our public school. I have never, ever understood the reasoning behind that; even as a child I thought the person who made that rule should try standing on the playground during winter in Northern Indiana in a dress or skirt with only knee socks or tights on your legs. It was literally painful.

Require women to wear dresses or skirts … and always with hosiery (another debate)? Only if men always keep their top button buttoned, their tie tight, and never remove their suit jacket, and they must wear sock garters so there are no slouchy socks. Then we’ll talk.

Lawyers usually do wear suits when meeting clients or appearing in court. Has that changed much, and should it? A partner at a large national firm was quoted earlier this year as saying high-powered lawyers always wear suits because people want their attorneys to look like high-powered lawyers. Really? I doubt the person at legal aid cares, although the multi-million-dollar corporation might. So, should the situation dictate the dress? Perhaps it does because I've read that lawyers -- employed or otherwise -- are dressing up more in recent months, wanting to look good for the boss or potential boss.

The only trend I’ve seen that bothers me is seeing women wearing suits with flip-flops. It’s one thing if you’re walking to your car or running an errand, but to look nice and polished … and then wear the plastic/rubber flip-flop sandals. It’s just a bad look. I’m not bothered by women not wearing hosiery (guys, try on a pair of hose and wear them when it’s 85 degrees), but flip-flops?

Dress codes can help guide people because different firms and corporations have different cultures. Dress for work also depends on the profession and even the region of the country or world, but I believe most people need to take their cues from their workplace superiors.

So, what is the state of law firm dress and how has it changed for the better or worse?
ADVERTISEMENT
  • I believe flip-flops should be totally forbidden in the workplace. They have NO place outside of the beach or slouching at home. I do believe that common sense has totally gone out the window, too. Very well written opinion and I wholeheartedly agree with you!

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT