Formal Shoe Question (law office)

[TonyThe Tailor]

I have dressed over 1,000 lawyers. My advice to summer SA's in regards to shoes is a black captoe: either Allen Edmonds Park Avenue or Fifth Avenue. In addition to being appropriate, it starts you out wearing quality footwear.

 

[Master Shake]

The black shoe is the safe bet that will be inoffensive. But no one will rake you over the coals for wearing a brown shoe, and the partner who brings that up as a reason to not extend an offer (assuming someone this imbalanced even exists, even among the ranks of Big Law partners) will look like a jackass. Still, to be safe, I would stick with black, and you can wear brown after you get the offer. Good luck.

 

[Quadcammer]



This is a somewhat naive answer that I would expect from a second or third year associate that is not involved in making offers.  I have been in charge of a big law Summer Associate program and can tell you that many of the things partners complain about regarding SA's are trivial and minor.  And some do involve dress for both men and women.  And, I do agree with Quadcammer to the extent that if an SA is awesome enough, he/she can overcome many things.  Even orange suede shoes, if he/she is head and shoulders above everyone else.  So, if OP is that awesome, wear his brown shoes.  If not, why risk standing out in a negative way before he gets the offer?  Once he gets the offer, fire away and show off his SF style.

Edit:  My post comes off as harsh.  Not trying to slam you; just sharing a perspective that you do not see in your firm.

Sure, dress is important. But from what I've seen, that includes things like: 1) not buttoning the top button and leaving the tie slightly loose, 2) wearing suits that are ridiculously too big to the point of making the person not look serious; 3) Driving mocassins or complete pos kenneth cole/aldo shoes that are typically loafers or completely beat to ****.

I have never seen anyone get judged poorly for wearing a nice pair of well maintained brown shoes...never.

Furthermore, my point is this:

If you are a mediocre associate, then you should worry about improving your skills well before worrying about your shoes. If you are a very good associate, then you don't need to worry about your shoes. The only way this could potentially even be a question is if the person is right on the cusp, and then its more so luck and personality than it is shoe color.

I guess my advice is worry first and foremost about lawyering, and probably 15th about the color of your shoes.

 

[urfloormatt]

This is a somewhat naive answer that I would expect from a second or third year associate that is not involved in making offers. I have been in charge of a big law Summer Associate program and can tell you that many of the things partners complain about regarding SA's are trivial and minor. And some do involve dress for both men and women. And, I do agree with Quadcammer to the extent that if an SA is awesome enough, he/she can overcome many things. Even orange suede shoes, if he/she is head and shoulders above everyone else. So, if OP is that awesome, wear his brown shoes. If not, why risk standing out in a negative way before he gets the offer? Once he gets the offer, fire away and show off his SF style.

Edit: My post comes off as harsh. Not trying to slam you; just sharing a perspective that you do not see in your firm.

Make no mistake, I am fully a believer in being safe rather than being sorry, and I think OP should absolutely purchase a black lace-up bal over a brown one since he has neither an acceptable black or brown lace-up for suit-wearing occasions. But for someone who has both, the only thought they should put into which they should wear is whether they wore it the day before--to give the leather the rest it needs.

Complaining about trivial or minor things that an associate is oblivious to (particularly when it's based on an arbitrary and unclear rule on the formality of shoe color) and actually relying on that complaint to extend or decline an offer are entirely different things. I am well aware that partners are frequently idiosyncratic and convey idiosyncratic and useless concerns to the hiring committee prior to a decision being made. I am well aware that these idiosyncrasies may even delay the advancement of an associate that only does average work in a close case. But I am also well aware of the decision making process that our hiring committee goes through and if something like this came up in any serious way, it would spread among the associates like wildfire, and probably leak onto the internet.

Bear in mind, I'm not saying that concerns about dress and appearance don't come up--I am sure they do, as I've seen some questionable choices even in my relatively short experience, both on the end of dressing sloppily and on the end of dressing far too above one's station. But whether an associate who adheres to all the trappings of conservative business dress while opting to wear a dark brown formal shoe and belt instead of a black one? Would not--and should not--pass the smell test.