Playing dress up

October 29, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Do law offices have Halloween parties? Lawyers don’t strike me as the type to have an office Halloween party, or even don a costume in the office, but I could be mistaken.

In case you do have an office Halloween party, whether it’s at your office or your significant others/friend’s/neighbor’s/etc., don’t dress up like David Letterman and start hitting on all the women at the party. It may be funny and topical, but you may open yourself up to discipline, or even a lawsuit.

Overdramatic? Yes, but possible, according to lawyers in a National Law Journal article about Halloween parties.

They warn against dressing up as someone who might get you in trouble at work – Letterman, a naughty nurse, politically incorrect characters.

I would think of all people, attorneys would be the most aware of trying not to have an offensive costume while at a work party. But there could be a few people who think because it’s a party, anything goes, or because it’s Halloween, they have a pass to wear a skirt that would never be office appropriate. That’s probably true for most people of any profession who attend their office parties.

Anyone having office Halloween parties this week or planning on dressing up in the office tomorrow?

And remember, have fun, but not so much fun that you’ll end up in the boss’ office the next day.
ADVERTISEMENT

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT