« Real Advice | Main | Second Amendment »
Suits
Calling all cars! Calling all cars! The urgent question has become:
How long can a guy go in law school or a legal career without owning a suit?
Ok, quit laughing, will you? I'm serious. I don't own a suit. I never have. And after making it this far in life w/out owning or wearing the uniform of capital, I don't have any desire to start now. Yeah, that's right, the uniform of capital: Men run around trying as hard as they can to look identical in their black suits with "understated" and "dignified" leashes tied around their necks. They look ridiculous. And why do they do it? Who are they trying to please? The man.
A corollary to today's question: Is it possible to wear a suit and not be a tool?
And but so, maybe I'm joking a little, but I'm serious about the fact that I think suits look ridiculous and I'd really prefer not to ever own or wear one. I feel like Bartleby. I prefer not.
Damn.
Yesterday I listened to a guy lecture a group of 1Ls for 20 minutes on the rules of appearance for successful lawyers. The hair must be slicked like a movie star's, you must be clean-shaven, you must have a certain collar (not button-down; you want the ones w/the plastic in them to make them stand up right), you must not have a colored shirt w/white collar and cuffs (you're not a partner yet, idiot), your shirt must be white or light blue, you must wear a belt, your tie must be at the perfect link, you must remove earrings, you must wear shoes that can be polished and they must be polished (don't forget to polish the sides of the soles!). Speaking of shoes, if you look down and you can see the soles sticking out around the edges, you need new shoes.
The guy just went on and on. And he was serious. It was sickening. And yes, I know he's an extreme case, but I really just want no part of that kind of business.
Mr. Clothes was supposed to be giving us tips on the upcoming ADR competition, which I sort of stumbled into blindly. Apparently you've got to look as much like your colleagues as possible if you're going to negotiation an agreement with them. Who knew?
Posted October 3, 2003 06:22 AM | law school
haha, I was at the same meeting, and having the same thoughts as you. I'm dreading the whole law profession right now. Good luck on your competition!
Posted by: matt at October 3, 2003 07:45 AM
Try being FEMALE. We are still relegated to wearing skirts!!!! Women in trousers will not be tolerated!
Note: In the wacko film version of Bartleby starring Crispin Glover, the suit seemed to be the one thing he did prefer.
Posted by: Cinnamon at October 3, 2003 07:10 PM
Matt: Is that Matt of LCE fame? Good to hear from you. Why'd you abandon the blog?
Cinnamon: I hear you, but you know, if all women would wear trousers to their interviews, etc., then they *would* be tolerated, wouldn't they? I mean, then women wearing pants couldn't be discriminated against because discriminating against women in pants would be discriminating against all women. Solidarity is where it's at. Men should do this, too -- no more ties or stupid coats worn indoors. Ick.
Posted by: ambimb at October 7, 2003 06:23 AM
As a man who used to do OCI for a large firm, I can tell you that a pantsuit would not have registered on me as unusual. Sexist as it may sound, I think men tend to defer to a woman's clothing choices, under the assumption that she must know better than we do what's appropriate to wear. Of course, I have no idea how a female interviewer might react to a non-traditional clothing choice.
I'm not necessarily representative, but I also wouldn't penalize a female OCI interviewee who showed up in a nice skirt and blouse, as opposed to a suit (or a male interviewee who arrived in a nice shirt without jacket and tie). There was always such a rush of so many people that all that ever really registered was whether I liked the person and he/she seemed smart and interested in the firm.
On the day of that person's callback, however, we were always looking for ways to make an interviewee stand out in our minds, and for ways to make fun of the interviewees, frankly. Showing up in something other than the standard attire would have been an unwelcome way of standing out, as unfortunately superficial as that sounds.
Certainly, an interviewee who showed up at any stage in sweats or shorts or a tanktop or a t-shirt would be at a disadvantage. My reaction would be that such a person is unwilling to make even the smallest sacrifices to his/her comfort, which does not bode well for a life as a law firm entry-level attorney.
You may not be interested in firms, of course, and I recognize that different rules apply in different circumstances. Courts are still very conservative, though, so even if you're doing public interest litigation, you likely will benefit from owning a suit if you're going to be appearing in front of a judge on a regular basis. If you believe, though, that your only court appearance will be your swearing-in, then you can probably get by with whatever you would wear to a funeral.
Posted by: Tom T. at October 8, 2003 11:13 PM
So you don't wear a suit because you don't want to be a tool of the man, huh? Good luck with your career.
Posted by: Anonymous at January 22, 2004 10:40 PM
Anonymous poster on Jan 22: Thanks. As explained here, I bought a damn suit and have since worn it a couple of times for those tool-esque endeavors in which law students can hardly avoid engaging -- competitions, interviews, you know. One of the reasons I'm looking at going into labor law is the hope that, while I might have to wear a suit, I'll be spending all my time finding ways to stick it to the man. Can you dismantle the master's house using the master's tools? I guess I'll see.
Are you an attorney?
Posted by: ambimb at January 23, 2004 05:30 AM
