Some Lawyers Dress Less Appropriately For Court – Above the Law

As
many
attorneys
intrinsically
understand,
there
is
an
unwritten
dress
code
that
most
lawyers
adhere
to
when
they
appear
in
court.
Although
I
am
unclear
about
the
dress
code
for
women,
most
lawyers
would
agree
that
men
should
wear
suits,
ties,
and
dress
shoes
when
they
appear
in
court.
Although
American
lawyers
do
not
wear
wigs
or
other
similar
accoutrements
of
the
legal
profession
to
court,
dressing
more
formally
to
court
makes
it
easier
for
court
staff
to
identify
lawyers
and
allows
attorneys
to
convey
their
respect
for
the
judicial
process.
Since
the
return
to
in-person
appearances
after
the
COVID-19
pandemic,
it
seems
like
an
increasing
number
of
lawyers
appear
in
court
in
apparel
that
does
not
abide
by
this
understood
dress
code.

Over
the
past
several
years,
I
have
seen
many
men
appear
in
court
in
suits
without
ties.
While
ties
can
sometimes
be
annoying,
putting
one
on
is
relatively
easy,
so
I
am
not
sure
why
so
many
attorneys
forgo
wearing
ties
to
court.
One
of
the
things
that
typically
distinguishes
business
formal
and
business
casual
attire
is
a
tie,
so
it
seems
like
it
would
be
a
no-brainer
that
male
attorneys
would
wear
a
tie
to
court.

Sure,
there
have
been
occasions
when
I
appeared
in
court
without
wearing
a
tie
or
even
without
wearing
a
suit
jacket.
If
I
was
just
dropping
off
papers
to
a
clerk’s
office
or
a
papers
submissions
part,
it
is
possible
that
I
would
not
wear
a
tie.
Sometimes,
you
might
get
treated
better
if
you
do
not
look
too
much
like
an
attorney.
However,
one
time
when
I
appeared
in
court
in
less
formal
attire,
I
had
to
see
a
judge
to
get
a
stipulation
“so
ordered”
that
I
thought
I
would
just
be
submitting,
so
lawyers
should
be
wary
since
they
may
end
up
seeing
a
judge
after
all
in
more
casual
attire.
Nevertheless,
if
male
lawyers
know
that
they
will
appear
in
front
of
judges,
it
usually
makes
sense
to
put
on
a
tie
since
this
signifies
the
solemnity
of
the
occasion.

Recently,
I
have
also
seen
lawyers
wear
sneakers
to
court
instead
of
dress
shoes.
Usually,
these
sneakers
look
professional

black,
brown,
or
some
other
muted
color.
However,
it
is
clear
that
the
footwear
worn
by
these
lawyers
are
not
the
typical
dress
shoes
that
usually
accompany
suits.

I
completely
understand
why
lawyers
would
want
to
wear
sneakers
instead
of
shoes.
Sometimes,
lawyers
need
to
walk
long
distances
to
travel
to
court
with
public
transportation,
and
it
is
more
comfortable
for
such
lawyers
to
wear
sneakers
in
such
instances
rather
than
shoes.
Other
times,
lawyers
have
a
medical
reason,
and
I
once
wore
sneakers
to
court
after
I
injured
my
foot.
However,
it
is
usually
easy
and
affordable
to
pick
up
a
decent
pair
of
dress
shoes,
so
sneakers
might
be
inappropriate
in
most
circumstances.

From
my
experience,
the
type
of
case
and
the
type
of
court
have
a
huge
impact
on
the
clothes
worn
by
a
lawyer
to
court.
I
have
appeared
in
a
number
of
compliance
parts
recently
in
which
dozens,
if
not
hundreds,
of
lawyers
discuss
discovery
disputes
in
front
of
court
staff,
and
lawyers
dress
down
likely
due
to
the
low
likelihood
of
speaking
to
a
judge.
I
have
also
appeared
in
landlord-tenant
courts
frequently
in
the
past
year
or
two,
and
it
seems
that
lawyers
in
such
cases
also
dress
down
on
occasion.
However,
I
have
never
seen
a
lawyer
dress
down
at
appearances
in
any
of
the
federal
cases
I
work
on,
likely
because
federal
courthouses
are
often
much
nicer
than
state
courthouses,
and
the
seriousness
of
the
cases
has
an
impact
on
the
apparel
decisions
of
attorneys.

I
am
not
judging
people
who
might
not
be
able
to
adhere
to
informal
dress
codes
due
to
economic
limitations
or
mistakes,
and
of
course,
people
can
adhere
to
any
dress
code
that
comports
with
their
gender
identity.
It
just
seems
to
me
that
many
lawyers
have
loosened
up
their
dress
code
when
they
appear
in
court
now
that
the
COVID-19
pandemic
has
passed,
and
I’d
love
to
hear
from
readers
of
this
column
who
witnessed
lawyers
dressing
down
in
court.
Ultimately,
if
there
are
no
issues
preventing
a
lawyer
from
dressing
formally
to
court,
this
is
usually
the
best
approach,
since
this
helps
court
staff
identify
lawyers,
and
dressing
formally
shows
the
respect
and
solemnity
attorneys
have
for
the
judicial
process.




Rothman Larger HeadshotJordan
Rothman
is
a
partner
of




The
Rothman
Law
Firm
,
a
full-service
New
York
and
New
Jersey
law
firm.
He
is
also
the
founder
of




Student
Debt
Diaries
,
a
website
discussing
how
he
paid
off
his
student
loans.
You
can
reach
Jordan
through
email
at





[email protected]
.

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar Praised For Being ‘Superhuman’ – Above the Law

Elizabeth
Prelogar



Ed.
note
:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day
.


Elizabeth
makes
what
she
does
look
pretty
easy
because
she
doesn’t
melt
down.
But
she
is
juggling
a
load
that
would
cause
most
people
to
melt
down.
I
think
for
her
to
maintain
her
life
and
her
family
and
do
her
job
taxes
even
her
superhuman
level
of
stamina
sometimes.
What
people
ought
to
know
is
just
how
much
she
shoulders
by
herself.
It’s
kind
of
crazy.





Tejinder
Singh
,
a
partner
at
Sparacino,
in
comments
given
to

Vanity
Fair

on
how
his
dear
law
school
friend

Elizabeth
Prelogar

handles
her
job
as
Solicitor
General.
Wayne
Kidwell,
an
old
family
friend,
said,
“I
hope
that
I
can
live
long
enough
that
I
can
see
her
nominated
to
the
US
Supreme
Court.”



Staci ZaretskyStaci
Zaretsky
 is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to

email

her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on

X/Twitter

and

Threads

or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn
.

Golden Gate Law’s Doors Will Remain Closed – Above the Law

When
Golden
Gate
University
School
of
Law
decided
to
close
its
doors
and
funnel
its
remaining
students
to
nearby
accredited
institutions,
a
small
group
fought
hard
to
pry
the
Gate
back
open.
A
judge
recently
decided
whether
an
injunction
would
be
successful.

Reuters

has
coverage:

Golden
Gate
University’s
shuttered
law
school
will
remain
closed
after
a
judge
on
Monday
denied
an
injunction
to
reopen
it,
as
a
group
of
former
students
and
alumni
had
asked.

It’s
“unlikely”
that
the
plaintiffs
will
be
able
to
secure
a
court
order
to
reopen
the
123-year-old
San
Francisco
school
following
California
Superior
Court
Judge
Richard
Ulmer’s
latest
ruling,
said
Golden
Gate
Law
alum
Ryan
Griffith,
who
is
representing
the
plaintiffs.

It
has
been
a
honorable
fight,
but
the
judge
is
right
to
frame
the
practicalities
of
rehiring
faculty
and
administrators
needed
to
run
the
school
as
“disruptive.”
Even
if
it
did
reopen,
would
you
want
to
go
to
Golden
Gate?
Even
if
you
managed
to
pass
the
bar,
would
employers
respect
the
name
on
the
diploma?
This
isn’t
the
closure
the
plaintiffs
wanted,
but
at
least
there’s
some
closure.
The
door
remains
open
for
remedies
by
other
means;
stay
turned
for
the
hearing
on
Oct.
22nd
to
see
if
and
how
the
case
will
proceed.


California
Judge
Rejects
Bid
To
Reopen
123-Year-Old
Law
School

[Reuters]


Earlier:


Even
Golden
Gate
Law’s
Exit
Strategy
Has
A
Low
Passage
Rate



Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s
.
 He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor
,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected] and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

Biglaw Firm Bucks Tradition To Try And Reverse 20 Percent Revenue Slump – Above the Law

The
last
three
years
haven’t
been
great
for
Cahill,
Gordon
&
Reindel.
The
New
York
mainstay
saw
its
revenue
take
a
20%
dive
over
that
period,
thanks
to

the
decline

in
the
high-yield
and
leveraged
loans
markets.
But
the
problem
went
deeper
than
a
decline
in
billables

they
also
lost
~12
partners
to
the
lateral
market.
And
as
managing
partner
Herbert
Washer

told
Bloomberg
Law
,
that
“woke
us
up
to
the
realities
of
the
legal
market.”

Historically,
Cahill
is
on
the
smaller
side
of
a
Biglaw
firm

300+
attorneys

and
eschews
the
lateral
market.
That
strategy
paid
off
with

sky-high
profits
per
partner

and
a

reputation

for

sharing
the
wealth

with
associates
via
generous

special
bonuses

But
in
the
year
of
our
lord
2024,
would
the
tried
and
true
(105
years
strong!)
strategy
still
work?

Well,
Cahill
decided
it
was
time
to
mix
it
up

adding
17
lateral
partners
and
expanding
into
the
private
credit,
bankruptcy,
M&A,
project
finance,
white-collar,
cryptocurrency,
congressional
investigations,
and
intellectual
property
litigation
practice
areas.
As
Washer
said,
“If
the
lateral
market
is
going
to
try
to
pull
people
from
Cahill,
well,
we
can
go
ahead
and
look
to
see
if
there
are
opportunities
for
us
to
pull
partners
from
other
law
firms.”

That
required
tweaking
the
firm’s
compensation
system.
And
it
sure
sounds
like
younger
attorneys
are
the
beneficiaries.

“We
have
very
high
profit
margins,
which
effectively
means
that
we
can
pay
our
partners
a
greater
percentage
of
our
revenue
than
many,
if
not
most,
of
our
peers,”
Washer
said.
“That
allows
us
to
offer
competitive
compensation
to
lateral
partners
because
we
have
the
profit
margins.”

The
firm
also
tweaked
its
compensation
system
to
allow
for
more
rapid
ascension,
so
lawyers
don’t
necessarily
have
to
wait
until
they’re
a
partner
in
their
50s
to
get
paid
top
dollar,
Washer
said.

Washer
noted,
“It’s
important
to
pay
people
what
they’re
worth
when
they’re
worth
it.”

And
the
new
outlook
is
already
paying
off.
“By
all
metrics

demand,
value
of
time,
billing,
revenue

I
think
the
firm
is
up
substantially
over
2023,”
said
Washer.
“We’ve
not
just
sustained
the
business

we’ve
grown
the
business.”
Plus
it
doesn’t
hurt
that
the
syndicated
loan
market
is
rebounding.

But
the
firm’s
expansion
doesn’t
mean
it’s
trying
to
be
all
things
to
all
people.
They
still
want
a
focused

and
elite

practice.
“We
want
to
be
top
tier
in
the
things
that
we
do,”
Washer
said.
“History
suggests
that
being
very
profitable
and
being
targeted
are
not
mutually
exclusive.”




Kathryn Rubino HeadshotKathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of

The
Jabot
podcast
,
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer
.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email

her

with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter

@Kathryn1
 or
Mastodon

@[email protected].

Lawyers For Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs Make Embarrassing Mistake In Bail Letter To Judge – Above the Law

Sean
‘Diddy’
Combs
(Photo
by
Shareif
Ziyadat/Getty
Images)

Earlier
this
week,

Sean
“Diddy”
Combs
,
the
man
behind
many
of
the
greatest
90s
rap
hits,
was

arrested
and
charged

with
three
criminal
counts
in
a
federal
indictment,
accusing
the
music
mogul
of
sex
trafficking,
racketeering,
and
transportation
to
engage
in
prostitution.
The
Bad
Boy
Records
founder
pleaded
not
guilty
during
his
arraignment
hearing
and
was
denied
bail

but
not
for
lack
of
effort
from
his
legal
team.

In
a

10-page
letter

to
Judge
Robyn
Tarnofsky
of
the
Southern
District
of
New
York,

Marc
Agnifilo

and

Teny
Geragos

of
Agnifilo
Intrater
proposed
that
Combs
be
released
on
a
$50
million
bond,
claiming
that
the
rap
impresario
is
not
a
flight
risk.
Agnifilo
and
Geragos
go
on
to
detail
Combs’s
history
and
characteristics,
speaking
of
his
philanthropic
efforts
and
the
many
ways
that
he
has
“championed
minorities
and
underrepresented
communities.”
Unfortunately,
this
segment
of
the
attorneys’
plea
to
curry
favor
for
their
client
was
marred
by
an
embarrassing
editing
error.

Sean Combs Bail Letter Track Changes

Hmm…
what’s
that?
It
seems
that
someone
forgot
to
turn
off
track
changes
in
the
document,
leaving
behind
a
little
comment
bubble.
Let’s
take
a
look
and
see
what
it
says.

Sean Combs Bail Letter Editing Error

Yikes!

“This
reads
awkwardly
to
me,
and
I’m
not
quite
sure
what
it’s
going
for.”
Katie
Renzler
represents
Diddy
in
another
case,
but
his
attorneys
in
this
case
apparently
ignored
her
comment
because
can’t
nobody
take
their
pride,
can’t
nobody
hold
them
down,
oh
no,
they’ve
got
to
keep
on
movin’.

Lawyers,
please
let
this
serve
as
a
reminder
to
turn
off
track
changes
before
submitting
documents
that
will
be
widely
read
in
incredibly
high-profile
cases.
This
is
cringeworthy.


Sean
‘Diddy’
Combs
indicted
on
federal
sex
trafficking
charges

[Courthouse
News
Service]



Staci ZaretskyStaci
Zaretsky
 is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to

email

her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on

X/Twitter

and

Threads

or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn
.

Judges Should Be On The Shortlist Of People You Never Want To Blackmail – Above the Law

Post-divorce
fallouts
and
negotiations
can
get
ugly,
but
they
should
never
get
“if
you
try
and
depose
my
new
girlfriend,
I’ll
revenge
leak
your
nudes”
ugly.
That’s
just
blackmail.
“Negotiation
tactics”
like
that
are
begging
to
go
in
front
of
a
judge
under
normal
circumstances,
but
nothing
expedites
the
punishment
quite
like
your
former
spouse
being
a
judge.
Yup,
you
read
that
right:

ABA
Journal

has
coverage.

A
Florida
judge
[Marni
Bryson]
has
settled
her
lawsuit
against
a
lawyer

she
sued
 for
allegedly
trying
to
blackmail
her
with
nude
photos
chronicling
her
pregnancy.

According
to
Bryson,
she
was
told
that
her
nude
photos
and
other
damaging
information
would
be
released
if
she
insisted
on
taking
a
deposition
of
the
then-girlfriend.
She
sought
punitive
damages
against
the
defendants.

I
do
not
have
the
words
to
express
how
fundamentally
stupid
it
is
to
even

suggest

blackmailing
a
judge
by
threatening
to
leak
their
nude
pregnancy
photos.
I
do,
however,
have
a
short
video
clip:

While
the
details
of
the
settlement
are
sparse,
the
lesson
to
be
learned
is
clear:
If
you
hire
a
lawyer
who
lacks
common
sense,
you
will
pay
for
it
in
dollars.


Judge
Settles
Suit
Accusing
Lawyer
Of
Threatening
To
Release
Her
Intimate
Photos
In
Bid
To
Scuttle
Deposition

[ABA
Journal]



Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s
.
 He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor
,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected] and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

Solos & Small Firm Lawyers: Have You Taken Our Compensation Survey Yet? – Above the Law

If
you
are
a
lawyer
at
a
law
firm
employing
50
or
fewer
attorneys,
please take
this

brief,
completely
confidential
survey
.

The
2023
survey
collected
information
from
more
than
1,000
attorneys,
and
we
hope
to
top
that
number
this
year.

The

ATL
Solo
&
Small
Firm
Compensation
Report

offers
detailed
information
about
attorney
pay.
With
breakdowns
by
region,
firm
size,
practice
area,
gender,
and
more,
the
report
is
an
invaluable
benchmarking
resource
for
lawyers
working
in
small
practices.
And
we
need
your
help
to
put
it
together!

As
always,
the
survey
is
both
short
and
anonymous.


button_take-the-survey

More Lawyers Should Feel Comfortable Bringing Kids To Court – Above the Law

I
have
had
a
number
of
in-person
court
appearances
in
the
last
few
months,
and
the
experience
has
shown
me
that
lawyers
may
treat
in-person
appearances
a
little
differently
than
they
did
before
the
pandemic.
Earlier
this
week,
I
wrote
about
how

some
lawyers
seem
to
appear
in
court
in
less
formal
attire
,
possibly
due
to
the
return
to
in-person
appearances
following
the
COVID-19
pandemic.
I
have
also
seen
a
number
of
lawyers
bringing
kids
to
court
in
recent
months,
which
may
be
due
to
childcare
issues
or
the
fact
that
kids
were
out
of
school
for
the
summer.
At
a
recent
court
appearance,
I
saw
a
lawyer
bring
three
kids
to
court!
I
was
impressed
with
how
this
lawyer
was
both
able
to
handle
his
children
as
well
as
the
legal
task
at
hand.
In
most
circumstances,
bringing
kids
to
court
is
entirely
appropriate,
and
in
some
situations,
this
might
actually
be
an
advantage
to
the
lawyer.

The
first
time
I
ever
saw
a
lawyer
bring
a
kid
to
court
was
about
a
decade
ago
when
I
was
arguing
an
appeal
in
front
of
a
state
intermediate
appellate
court.
The
gallery
of
the
courtroom
was
full
of
numerous
lawyers,
and
possibly
some
clients,
who
were
all
in
formal
attire.
In
the
back,
a
father
who
was
wearing
a
suit
sat
next
to
a
kid
who
was
probably
seven
or
eight
years
old
who
everyone
presumed
was
his
child.

When
it
was
time
for
this
lawyer
to
argue
his
appeal,
the
lawyer
told
the
child
to
stay
in
his
seat
and
then
he
approached
the
lecture
to
make
his
arguments.
I
think
the
appellate
judges
were
touched
by
the
fact
that
the
father
brought
his
child
to
court
that
day.
One
of
the
appellate
judges
remarked
something
like
“it
looks
like
you
have
a
legal
assistant
with
you”
or
something
to
that
effect
to
playfully
point
out
that
the
lawyer
was
accompanied
by
his
child.
From
the
smiles
I
could
see
on
the
faces
of
the
appellate
judges,
it
seemed
that
bringing
a
kid
to
court
did
not
hurt
this
lawyer,
and
might
have
actually
helped
humanize
the
lawyer
in
front
of
the
appellate
judges.

As
previously
mentioned,
I
saw
a
lawyer
bring
three
of
his
kids
to
court
several
weeks
ago,
and
this
was
an
interesting
sight
to
see.
The
kids
followed
the
lawyer
around
as
he
worked
on
various
matters
for
which
the
lawyer
appeared
in
court.
Everyone
was
talking
about
the
kids
and
the
attorney
who
had
brought
the
kids
to
court.
However,
I
did
not
hear
a
negative
comment
about
the
fact
that
this
lawyer
brought
his
kids
to
court.
On
the
contrary,
most
of
the
comments
were
about
how
cute
and
well-behaved
the
kids
were
and
how
it
was
cool
that
this
lawyer
showed
his
kids
what
his
work
was
like.
I
am
not
sure
whether
having
children
helped
the
lawyer
advance
his
client’s
interests,
but
it
definitely
added
some
levity
to
the
drudgery
many
people
experience
in
court.

Granted,
I
am
the
type
of
person
who
likes
it
when
people
bring
their
kids
with
them
to
various
events.
When
I
was
in
law
school,
I
took
a
family
law
class
with
a
student
who
brought
her
infant
child
to
class
with
her.
There
were
only
around
thirty
or
so
people
in
the
class,
so
it
was
pretty
noticeable
when
the
child
acted
up,
but
for
the
most
part,
it
was
really
enriching
to
have
the
child
there.
Of
course,
not
everyone
is
comfortable
around
children,
and
some
people
do
not
understand
childcare
and
other
issues
that
surround
having
kids.
Indeed,
I
remember
one
story
about

a
judge
who
scolded
a
lawyer
for
bringing
an
infant
to
court

even
though
the
judge
refused
to
adjourn
a
matter
because
the
lawyer
had
recently
given
birth.
In
addition,
male
and
female
attorneys
are
likely
to
be
perceived
differently
if
they
bring
children
to
court
because
of
unfair
ways
people
unfairly
perceive
women
differently
from
men
if
they
mix
work
with
their
personal
life.
Moreover,
some
courts
have
rules
prohibiting
children
from
appearing
in
court
due
to
the
disturbance
this
may
cause,
and
this
is
usually
reasonable
if
members
of
the
public
are
not
expected
to
appear
in
court.

In
any
case,
people
should
be
more
understanding
of
lawyers
who
need
to
bring
children
to
court
for
childcare
or
other
reasons.
Courts
are
generally
very
open
to
members
of
the
public
bringing
children
to
court,
and
this
should
extend
to
lawyers.
In
the
post-COVID
era
when
in-person
court
appearances
are
rarer,
and
hybrid
work
arrangements
make
consistent
childcare
more
impractical,
judges
should
be
more
flexible
to
lawyers
who
bring
children
to
courts.
Kids
usually
do
not
cause
a
disturbance
in
court,
and
they
can
add
an
enriching
and
humanizing
element
to
court
proceedings
that
is
typically
absent
in
the
legal
industry.




Jordan
Rothman
is
a
partner
of




The
Rothman
Law
Firm
,
a
full-service
New
York
and
New
Jersey
law
firm.
He
is
also
the
founder
of




Student
Debt
Diaries
,
a
website
discussing
how
he
paid
off
his
student
loans.
You
can
reach
Jordan
through
email
at





[email protected]
.

Topics

Some Lawyers Dress Less Appropriately For Court – Above the Law

As
many
attorneys
intrinsically
understand,
there
is
an
unwritten
dress
code
that
most
lawyers
adhere
to
when
they
appear
in
court.
Although
I
am
unclear
about
the
dress
code
for
women,
most
lawyers
would
agree
that
men
should
wear
suits,
ties,
and
dress
shoes
when
they
appear
in
court.
Although
American
lawyers
do
not
wear
wigs
or
other
similar
accoutrements
of
the
legal
profession
to
court,
dressing
more
formally
to
court
makes
it
easier
for
court
staff
to
identify
lawyers
and
allows
attorneys
to
convey
their
respect
for
the
judicial
process.
Since
the
return
to
in-person
appearances
after
the
COVID-19
pandemic,
it
seems
like
an
increasing
number
of
lawyers
appear
in
court
in
apparel
that
does
not
abide
by
this
understood
dress
code.

Over
the
past
several
years,
I
have
seen
many
men
appear
in
court
in
suits
without
ties.
While
ties
can
sometimes
be
annoying,
putting
one
on
is
relatively
easy,
so
I
am
not
sure
why
so
many
attorneys
forgo
wearing
ties
to
court.
One
of
the
things
that
typically
distinguishes
business
formal
and
business
casual
attire
is
a
tie,
so
it
seems
like
it
would
be
a
no-brainer
that
male
attorneys
would
wear
a
tie
to
court.

Sure,
there
have
been
occasions
when
I
appeared
in
court
without
wearing
a
tie
or
even
without
wearing
a
suit
jacket.
If
I
was
just
dropping
off
papers
to
a
clerk’s
office
or
a
papers
submissions
part,
it
is
possible
that
I
would
not
wear
a
tie.
Sometimes,
you
might
get
treated
better
if
you
do
not
look
too
much
like
an
attorney.
However,
one
time
when
I
appeared
in
court
in
less
formal
attire,
I
had
to
see
a
judge
to
get
a
stipulation
“so
ordered”
that
I
thought
I
would
just
be
submitting,
so
lawyers
should
be
wary
since
they
may
end
up
seeing
a
judge
after
all
in
more
casual
attire.
Nevertheless,
if
male
lawyers
know
that
they
will
appear
in
front
of
judges,
it
usually
makes
sense
to
put
on
a
tie
since
this
signifies
the
solemnity
of
the
occasion.

Recently,
I
have
also
seen
lawyers
wear
sneakers
to
court
instead
of
dress
shoes.
Usually,
these
sneakers
look
professional

black,
brown,
or
some
other
muted
color.
However,
it
is
clear
that
the
footwear
worn
by
these
lawyers
are
not
the
typical
dress
shoes
that
usually
accompany
suits.

I
completely
understand
why
lawyers
would
want
to
wear
sneakers
instead
of
shoes.
Sometimes,
lawyers
need
to
walk
long
distances
to
travel
to
court
with
public
transportation,
and
it
is
more
comfortable
for
such
lawyers
to
wear
sneakers
in
such
instances
rather
than
shoes.
Other
times,
lawyers
have
a
medical
reason,
and
I
once
wore
sneakers
to
court
after
I
injured
my
foot.
However,
it
is
usually
easy
and
affordable
to
pick
up
a
decent
pair
of
dress
shoes,
so
sneakers
might
be
inappropriate
in
most
circumstances.

From
my
experience,
the
type
of
case
and
the
type
of
court
have
a
huge
impact
on
the
clothes
worn
by
a
lawyer
to
court.
I
have
appeared
in
a
number
of
compliance
parts
recently
in
which
dozens,
if
not
hundreds,
of
lawyers
discuss
discovery
disputes
in
front
of
court
staff,
and
lawyers
dress
down
likely
due
to
the
low
likelihood
of
speaking
to
a
judge.
I
have
also
appeared
in
landlord-tenant
courts
frequently
in
the
past
year
or
two,
and
it
seems
that
lawyers
in
such
cases
also
dress
down
on
occasion.
However,
I
have
never
seen
a
lawyer
dress
down
at
appearances
in
any
of
the
federal
cases
I
work
on,
likely
because
federal
courthouses
are
often
much
nicer
than
state
courthouses,
and
the
seriousness
of
the
cases
has
an
impact
on
the
apparel
decisions
of
attorneys.

I
am
not
judging
people
who
might
not
be
able
to
adhere
to
informal
dress
codes
due
to
economic
limitations
or
mistakes,
and
of
course,
people
can
adhere
to
any
dress
code
that
comports
with
their
gender
identity.
It
just
seems
to
me
that
many
lawyers
have
loosened
up
their
dress
code
when
they
appear
in
court
now
that
the
COVID-19
pandemic
has
passed,
and
I’d
love
to
hear
from
readers
of
this
column
who
witnessed
lawyers
dressing
down
in
court.
Ultimately,
if
there
are
no
issues
preventing
a
lawyer
from
dressing
formally
to
court,
this
is
usually
the
best
approach,
since
this
helps
court
staff
identify
lawyers,
and
dressing
formally
shows
the
respect
and
solemnity
attorneys
have
for
the
judicial
process.




Rothman Larger HeadshotJordan
Rothman
is
a
partner
of




The
Rothman
Law
Firm
,
a
full-service
New
York
and
New
Jersey
law
firm.
He
is
also
the
founder
of




Student
Debt
Diaries
,
a
website
discussing
how
he
paid
off
his
student
loans.
You
can
reach
Jordan
through
email
at





[email protected]
.