Appearances

Shoes, Clothes, and Law, Oh My

Manamana — Thu, 22 May 2008 11:35:53 -0500

The Wall Street Journal has joined the hoary conversation on women’s professional apparel with a trifeca of articles/blog posts: first, with a profile of Lehman Brother’s CFO Erin Callan; next, with a follow-up post on The Juggle blog that specifically commented on Callan’s choice of shoes in the photo accompanying the profile; and now on the Law Blog, which picked up on comments that split on whether female lawyers indeed need to wear uncomfortable professional outfits in the courtroom.

And as regular Ms. JD readers know, this is indeed something that consumes a great deal of time and mental anxiety for female lawyers and law students (I’ve posted in the forum about it here; sintecho has written about long v. short hair here; and a paralegal has written about her sartorial quandaries here).

All of this leads to one simple conclusion: a lot of people have strong opinions on whether appearances matter, particularly for women. Past that, good luck finding any consensus. I’m not going to hide the ball on my position, since I have always thought that (1) appearances matter a lot; (2) there are absolutely wrong choices to make; and (3) finding the right balance between what is appropriate, comfortable, and something you like is one of those juggling skills that only come with a lot of practice, some keen observations, and a good sense of self. As a huge fan of Go Fug Yourself and Jezebel’s Snap Judgments and the Good, the Bad, & the Ugly, I’m not afraid to stick with the notion that the message you send with your clothes and appearance will often precede you, and may even ensure that what comes out of your mouth (or from your briefs) can both be discounted or augmented by your appearance.

Personally, and (I think) in light of my relative youth, background, and brand new J.D. (a whole other post!), I go conservative.

A Girl Just Wants to Have Fun: Do I Have to Be Serious to Be Taken Seriously?

jessie — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 09:43:18 -0600

I can be something of a girly-girl: I think I make a bubbly first impression, I can have a silly sense of humor, I spend a lot of time thinking about my shoes, and I waste time reading about celebrities. Basically I engage in some frivolity, and I like that about myself. Intellectually, I'm into tax policy; so mostly I figure the patent-leather pumps are a positive indication of well-roundedness. Unfortunately that's not necessarily how others perceive these traits; it seems to me that youthful, stereotypically feminine attributes are frowned upon, especially by the generation of pioneers who broke into the profession.

[More after the jump]

What Not to Wear (Or, What Not to Say?) [Blogwatching]

Legal Eagle — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:23:44 -0600

I ignored this story as long as I could. Last week Christina Binkley published the article, "Law Without Suits: New Hires Flout Tradition." She subtitled it "Young Attorneys' Casual Attire Draws Criticism at Big Firms; A Crackdown on Ugg Boots." And that... was pretty much the whole story. A few senior partners at Big Law firms went on record to say that basically, some junior associates dress like slobs. Sara Shikhman, a 26-year-old associate from Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, went on the record to say "Getting up in the morning and putting on a suit is hard," which mildly embarrassed women like myself on behalf of our generation and our gender. I hope her words were edited out of context (as in, "Putting on a suit is hard... but you suck it up and do it when you need to.") Anyway, I was hoping that was what she'd said.

Oh, and there was also a male partner--Tom Mills, of Winston & Strawn--who apparently had to apologize to female associates at his firm for commenting on their dress. Here's what he had to apologize for:

Mr. Mills says that when some associates do make an effort to dress up, they seem to base their look on Hollywood. "You get the TV-woman lawyer look with skirts 12 inches above the knee and very tight blouses," he says. "They have trouble sitting and getting into taxis."

Why did Mills have to apologize? The way Binkley tells it, he didn't necessarily generalize to say that "all" or even "most" female associates dress too provocatively. Just "some." I don't find that hard to believe, or anything to apologize for. He didn't make any claim about female associates in general.

What am I missing?

Yet today Above the Law took news of Mills' apology as a chance to ask readers whether it's "Time for Winston Women To Go Burqa Shopping?" Let me say that I like ATL, it does some good reporting and seems to have a sense of humor. Sadly, some of their readers don't always get the satire. Instead commenters at ATL, insightful as ever, took the opportunity to have unprintable discussion #973 about (a) how female lawyers dress slutty/are sluts (but who cares because they'll be leaving to have babies soon), or (b) female lawyers should dress even more sluttily because male colleagues and clients should be able to take in the view, with caveat (c) that "fat piece of trash" lawyers have no business whatsoever in the workplace, much less "dressing like Ally McBeal."

Stay classy, anonymous ATL commenters. I'm so glad to share the profession with you.

Appearances

Anonymous — Mon, 9 Apr 2007 11:02:47 -0500

My ex-boyfriend, getting ready for work every morning, pulling on his unfailingly neat pressed slacks and expensive Brooks Brothers suit, would always, without fail, complain about his height. As I lay quietly in bed in the early morning hours, still unbelieving that we were in this amazing apartment in midtown Manhattan, almost feeling like we had become our parents, I could not believe that Aaron could be complaining about anything.

To ring or not to ring?

Manamana — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 13:52:06 -0600

I know that my school's career services office has its own line on this question (do what you feel comfortable with), but the ring dilemma seems to come up every interview season. The WSJ blog The Juggle has posted on this here, and it seems there are many opinions out there. Basically, there is no real bright line rule, which indicates the question will linger on. (I also recommend checking out the post's comments, which include many from lawyers and former lawyers.)

Has anyone here had negative (or positive) ring experiences in interviews? Or does it really not matter (as I think many career offices say)?