At Above The Law, Davit Lat has been painstakingly scrutinizing the hottest issue in lawyer courtroom attire. The politically androgynous Ann Althouse not only weighs in, but provides the intimate details of her own experience. Even the ABA Journal considers it significant enough to be worthy of an article. What critical question gave rise to this high-powered attention?
Whether it’s appropriate for “lady lawyers” to wear peep-toe shoes in court.
This may be the most banal, absurd and embarrassing “issue” to ever hit the blawgosphere. Who cares? There has never been a discussion less worthy of the profession than women’s footwear.
I’m not entirely sure what makes a shoe “peep-toe,” and I don’t care to know. Unless someone comes into court with a reasonable facsimile of Ronald McDonald’s big red clown shoes, I wouldn’t know what someone had on their feet if you paid me. I believe it’s safe to say that most men, Lat excluded, would say the same thing. Your shoes are not my concern. No, really. Men just don’t care. We don’t notice. We don’t look. We don’t care.
The issue of appropriate dress in court is a worthy one to the extent that inappropriate dress becomes a distraction. No lawyer wants people thinking about her looking strange or weird rather than paying attention to the sounds emanating from her mouth. Once you’re past the distraction issue, however, it doesn’t matter one iota. Do peep-toe shoes distract from your arguments? I assure you that they do not, unless they are bright red and hugely oversized.
What does concern me, and concern me greatly, is that anyone would put this much effort into something so utterly meaningless.
Defendant in capital case to woman lawyer: Did you work on your summation last night to keep me from losing and facing execution?
Woman defense lawyer: I planned to, but I ran out of time after I spent the evening trying to decide between the beige peep-toes or the black pumps.
Judge: Will the defendant please rise?
When a lawyer stands in the trench aside a defendant, the lawyer is a professional with responsibilities that transcend gender. It’s all about the client, the person who has put their life in your hands. Notably, not your feet. Your fashion sense is not on trial, no matter how important you think it may be that the shoes match the bag. In the well, you are a lawyer, not a male or female lawyer. No jury, to my knowledge, has ever returned a verdict influenced by the sight of toes. Or lack thereof.
But what of the judge? My thought is that any judge influenced in the performance of his or her duty by a lawyer’s shoes should be immediately and permanently removed from the bench. Lat (of course) puts his mad former AUSA skills to work, and investigates this critical aspect thoroughly.
One of the judges who dissented, lodging her opposition to a litigatrix sporting peep-toe shoes in court, was Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw (9th Cir.):
My view is that if you have a question about the appropriateness of your attire, don’t risk it. Women appearing in court should never wear anything that draws attention to their anatomy over the merits of their case. You just never know how your audience — judges, jurors, clients or senior partners — will react. It’s better to play it safe in formal settings and save the peep-toes for after hours.
But don’t get the wrong impression about Judge Wardlaw, who is fierce and fabulous (see my earlier interview of her). She is not some fashion fuddy-duddy. Although she recommends against lawyers wearing peep-toes to court, she owns many pairs of herself, which she happily wears in chambers.
Shoot me now. This is what a 9th Circuit judge thinks about? And they wonder why it’s the most reversed circuit in the nation? And this is a system with the authority to impose the death penalty?
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Funny. I am on my way to court sporting a pair of staurt weitzman black PATENT peep toes. It’s federal court where we always lose anyway.
But really, this is just dumb. We all want to look good and be on point. I’m not going to wear loafers and a dowdy suit so people will think I’m a real lawyer and should be taken seriously. I can let the lawyering take care of that for me.
Black patent peep toes? Ahem.
In my experience, jurors notice how a woman lawyer dresses, and the right clothes can make them pay more attention to you. Then again, I’m talking about San Francisco and the most interested jurors on this topic were gay male jurors.
The biggest distraction I recall is suntan pantyhose (yikes) and men wearing mismatched sport jacket outfits. You NYC guys might not realize what some lawyers dress like in the wild west of Colorado or outlying California suburbs.
Wasn’t Kim half-Hispanic Wardlaw considered quasi-shortlisted for SCOTUS by BO when Sotomayor was picked? She should learn you get further ahead in affirmative action if your Dad is the Hispanic one. Maybe she could adopt a hyphenated name.
Is it just me, or does it seem like women always blame their footwear issues on gay men? I think it’s discriminatory.
Whew. Now that you’ve proclaimed that ffootwear doesn’t matter I can get a pair of black sneakers like I’ve always wanted.
They still have to be shoes. Nobody, but nobody, is fooled by those black sneakers.
Whew. When I read the title I envisioned a bunch of lawyers in baby stomper boots.
And I would have thought you to be highly attuned to women’s footwear fashion, given your devotion to Hawaiian shirts.
Nah. I’m one of those “but you already have black shoes” types.
So it’s the only the males in the Rosenberg household who deserve to be fashionable?
Nah. Actually, SWMBO has quite a sense of style and Whining Spice one that’s all her own. Nagging Spice takes after me — apparently her sense of fashion, like mine, was shot off in the war.
I don’t have peep toes. Never saw any I cared to buy. I have dancing shoes! Not suitable for court! Northern exposure. Yow. They work for me with the black silk dress with the sarong gathered on my left hip.
Hmm. An idea for juries. Or the appellate court. Maybe it is high time to try. Something has to work with the panel. ; ].
Loved this post Scott! I couldn’t agree more. I am so tired of reading posts about what women lawyers should or shouldn’t wear–so many more important things to think about/discuss.
I am reluctant to point out that this fixation on women’s shoes really doesn’t help when it comes to promoting equality, but rather fits the negative stereotype of women being obsessed with superficial issues and personal appearance.
I was mortified a couple months ago in court to glance down and see that I had slipped on the wrong pumps. I had walked in the rain in them and they plainly needed polishing and thought I had set them aside to do it. There are times and places for obsessing about superficial issues and personal appearances but that was not this situation. It was impropriety & bad grooming. I will be more careful.
In fact I figured every man in the room including the judge would notice because, I notice, men take care that their shoes are neat and polished. Isn’t that true?
Shoes in need of a shining are indeed distracting, as would be a jacket with a hole in it or a tie with a big stain.
Exactly. I hated myself.
Okay, well perhaps shoes don’t matter but I know first hand nails & jewelry do. Speaking with jurors after trial a few years ago in Houston, Texas …female jurors surprised me by volunteering they ‘loved’ my nails (as in fingernails), and the way my jewelry matched my suit blouses each day. Until that moment, I’d thought it was my brilliant legal argument that had impressed them. And, to think I’d almost skipped that manicure to prepare for trial ..jeesh.
Another testament to the jurors of Houston.