Formal Shoe Question (law office)

[urfloormatt]

An SA is not wearing black shoes for the judge, jury or other attorneys in the gallery. He's wearing them for the attorneys at the law firm evaluating whether to extend him an offer. He needs to demonstrate he has good judgment in how to dress for when he is the one arguing or meeting with the client.

Fair enough. But if you can point me to the SA candidate that was dinged because he wore brown oxford shoes instead of black with his navy suit to court, I'd like to meet him and let him know that whatever he's doing now instead, he and his sanity are infinitely better for it.

As a SA nobody wants you to express your individuality. Most in the office will barely learn your name. The only thing they will notice is if you 'fit in', 'worked hard' and shoveled the **** paperwork appropriately.
I couldn't even tell you the names of the interns in my office right now - and three of them work on my team. I could, however, tell you if they showed up to work looking inappropriate for the office. And doing so would greatly diminish their opportunities to return.

I don't disagree with the overall tenor of your post, but the above points seem highly discordant with noticing and then condemning a candidate for wearing conservative business dress with conservative and appropriate shoes that happen to be brown instead of black.

 

[Quadcammer]



Thanks for all the advice guys. It seems like the clear answer is "go black". Unfortunately, I can't "go black" in the shoes I posted because the only way I was going to afford Peal & Co. shoes is to get them on sale and brown is my only option there. So, that being said, any recommendations on a sub $300 shoe that would be appropriate to wear with my suit when I wear it in the office?

canned answer:

Allen Edmonds Park Avenue from all About Shoes at $245 a pair

 

[HalfCanvas]

Original poster, you should consider these: http://www.howardyount.com/collections/shoes/products/black-calf-captoe-brogues

I also think these would be perfectly fine (and would be my own preference): http://www.howardyount.com/collections/shoes/products/brown-calf-captoe-brogues

 

[IAmNietzche]

Quote:

canned answer:
Allen Edmonds Park Avenue from all About Shoes at $245 a pair

Canned or not, your advice is well received.

Original poster, you should consider these: http://www.howardyount.com/collections/shoes/products/black-calf-captoe-brogues
I also think these would be perfectly fine (and would be my own preference): http://www.howardyount.com/collections/shoes/products/brown-calf-captoe-brogues

Thanks. Those are great looking shoes.

 

[rboat]



canned answer:
Allen Edmonds Park Avenue from all About Shoes at $245 a pair

I would get a pair of park ave's. I have never seen any of our big law counsel wearing anything but black conservative shoes and I always check. Communicating you know what is appropriate is more important than communicating you have style.

 

[IAmNietzche]

Do the Park Avenues fit true to size?

Also, do these look like they are in good condition/worth the asking price?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/ALLEN-EDMON...4599633?pt=US_Men_s_Shoes&hash=item35b9732c51

 

[rboat]



Do the Park Avenues fit true to size?

Also, do these look like they are in good condition/worth the asking price?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/ALLEN-EDMON...4599633?pt=US_Men_s_Shoes&hash=item35b9732c51

I dont think so. They will probably need to be resoled soon which is now $125. A new pair from all about shoes is ~$250. There is a lot of discussion on the sizing of ae's but it is probably best to head into nordstroms and try them on.

 

[IAmNietzche]

I dont think so. They will probably need to be resoled soon which is now $125. A new pair from all about shoes is ~$250. There is a lot of discussion on the sizing of ae's but it is probably best to head into nordstroms and try them on.

That makes sense. Also, could you link me to All About Shoes, I can't seem to find the website.

 

[KObalto]



wear brown or black. I've sat in on hundreds of trials and have cadwalader, wickersham, & taft in my building. Many attorneys will wear brown or burgundy shoes with their navy suits. Black is still typical with gray or charcoal though.
A walnut brogue would raise some eyebrows, but a dark brown cap toe is a non-issue.
If you can afford it, get brown and black. Saves you wear and tear and allows you to be ready for most situations.

^ This. I am over 50, a lawyer, and a boss and see nothing wrong with brown. OTOH, I am neither Big Law nor a big-timer.

 

[New Shoes1]

Fair enough. But if you can point me to the SA candidate that was dinged because he wore brown oxford shoes instead of black with his navy suit to court, I'd like to meet him and let him know that whatever he's doing now instead, he and his sanity are infinitely better for it.

I don't know if you were ever an SA at a large law firm, but it's much different today than it was just five years ago. SA's used to go into the Summer programs expecting to get an offer as long as they did not screw up badly. Now, you have to prove you are one of the best SA's of the group to expect an offer. The norm today is for firms to have more SA's in a class than offers handed out. And, as to your point, there will be attorneys who will question the SA's judgment if he wears brown shoes with a suit to court or client meeting. Some will be indifferent, but it will cause some to question his judgment. That's one strike. Now, add in another instance of questionable judgment or other errors common to an SA, and a general impression may be formed regarding this SA's competence. Why start out with that first potential strike against yourself in such a competitive market?

Also, +1 on the Allen Edmonds Park Avenues. Great conservative suit shoe.

 

[Quadcammer]



Now, you have to prove you are one of the best SA's of the group to expect an offer. t.  And, as to your point, there will be attorneys who will question the SA's judgment if he wears brown shoes with a suit to court or client meeting.  Some will be indifferent, but it will cause some to question his judgment.  That's one strike.  Now, add in another instance of questionable judgment or other errors common to an SA, and a general impression may be formed regarding this SA's competence.  Why start out with that first potential strike against yourself in such a competitive market?

Also, +1 on the Allen Edmonds Park Avenues.  Great conservative suit shoe.

So prove that you ARE one of the best. No one is going to question the judgement of someone who wears dark brown shoes with a blue suit. We are not talking orange suede here. Dark brown is a conservative color. Not to mention that is at foot level. You can bone yourself far worse wearing an inappropriate tie (say one with beer mugs on it or something) then a plain dark brown captoe.

A hard working, normally dressed (including dark brown shoes) SA who shows that they are worthy of an offer won't get denied because the color of his plain, well kept captoes.

 

[urfloormatt]

Completely agree with Quadcammer.

I don't know if you were ever an SA at a large law firm, but it's much different today than it was just five years ago. SA's used to go into the Summer programs expecting to get an offer as long as they did not screw up badly. Now, you have to prove you are one of the best SA's of the group to expect an offer. The norm today is for firms to have more SA's in a class than offers handed out. And, as to your point, there will be attorneys who will question the SA's judgment if he wears brown shoes with a suit to court or client meeting. Some will be indifferent, but it will cause some to question his judgment. That's one strike. Now, add in another instance of questionable judgment or other errors common to an SA, and a general impression may be formed regarding this SA's competence. Why start out with that first potential strike against yourself in such a competitive market?

Also, +1 on the Allen Edmonds Park Avenues. Great conservative suit shoe.

I was a summer in 2008 and still am an associate in biglaw. I don't think that's an accurate analysis.

Firms that ding SAs are looked down upon badly--both by prospective associate candidates and (more importantly) by their peer firms. Summer 2009, and in isolated cases Summer 2008, were the only times in recent memory that SAs faced serious scrutiny due to an oversupply of summers relative to offers, where everyone carried an expectation that some associates would need to be weeded out at the end. That was due entirely to the rapidly changing economic circumstances at the time. If a firm is dinging an SA, one of three things happened: a) he/she did consistently poor work that couldn't be corrected; b) there was an incident; c) a practice group develops a significantly poor economic outlook that offer numbers shrink between interview season and the summer. It looks bad for the firm as much as the person dinged, and firms will do whatever they can to avoid it--and they do.

Now, since the supply of law students overall hasn't really changed, that means OCI and call-back interviews are much more intense than they were four or five years ago. But once you're a summer, the focus isn't on shoe color--it's on legal acumen and work performance. Signals that an associate lacks poor judgment would be: handles alcohol poorly at firm events; makes racist/sexist/insensitive comments in close company or emails; lacks punctuality or has attendance problems; has trouble meeting deadlines; and maybe dresses inappropriately in front of a client (though, on this, I think "inappropriately" is mostly going to mean under-dressed for the client by failing to wear a suit and tie).

In the extremely unlikely situation where someone thought that his shoe color was so important that the associate should be notified he made a mistake, then there should be a memo distributed to summers telling them what to wear to certain events. Multiple firms do in fact send out these types of memos. I would wager that not a single one mentions that an associate must wear black shoes to court. It would be the equivalent of telling female associates that they must wear skirt-suits (and not pant-suits) to court. No firm would ever go that far.

 

[hyakku]



Completely agree with Quadcammer.

 


I was a summer in 2008 and still am an associate in biglaw.  I don't think that's an accurate analysis.

Firms that ding SAs are looked down upon badly--both by prospective associate candidates and (more importantly) by their peer firms.  Summer 2009, and in isolated cases Summer 2008, were the only times in recent memory that SAs faced serious scrutiny due to an oversupply of summers relative to offers, where everyone carried an expectation that some associates would need to be weeded out at the end.  That was due entirely to the rapidly changing economic circumstances at the time.  If a firm is dinging an SA, one of three things happened: a) he/she did consistently poor work that couldn't be corrected; b) there was an incident; c) a practice group develops a significantly poor economic outlook that offer numbers shrink between interview season and the summer.  It looks bad for the firm as much as the person dinged, and firms will do whatever they can to avoid it--and they do.

Now, since the supply of law students overall hasn't really changed, that means OCI and call-back interviews are much more intense than they were four or five years ago.  But once you're a summer, the focus isn't on shoe color--it's on legal acumen and work performance.  Signals that an associate lacks poor judgment would be: handles alcohol poorly at firm events; makes racist/sexist/insensitive comments in close company or emails; lacks punctuality or has attendance problems; has trouble meeting deadlines; and maybe dresses inappropriately in front of a client (though, on this, I think "inappropriately" is mostly going to mean under-dressed for the client by failing to wear a suit and tie).

In the extremely unlikely situation where someone thought that his shoe color was so important that the associate should be notified he made a mistake, then there should be a memo distributed to summers telling them what to wear to certain events.  Multiple firms do in fact send out these types of memos.  I would wager that not a single one mentions that an associate must wear black shoes to court.  It would be the equivalent of telling female associates that they must wear skirt-suits (and not pant-suits) to court.  No firm would ever go that far.

I get your sentiment, but I think new shoes outlook at the state of the market right now is more accurate. Things are just starting to settle down from the post recession phase, and more law students are gunning for Big Law positions straight out to cover debts. Some people may be alright working at a smaller firm where I think much of this advice would be applicable, but at a firm like S&C, Latham, Skadden, I think even minute attention to detail is important. I mean, in an environment where everyone wants a position, if everything was equal, wouldn't you be more likely to hire the guy who showed tact and knowledge of business traditions than the one who didn't or chose to be slightly different?

I think the OP made the right choice going with black, I do think that lawyers and even Big law partners can definitely wear brown in the office, but for a summer just starting if you even have to ask about something being potentially detrimental to your future career, you shouldn't be doing it.

Edit: And don't take this for me asserting that I know more about the current market, you obviously have more experience having already finished LS and being in a firm. I just meant that logically, if two people did all the same things, and it DID come down to shoes, the OP wants to be the guy erring on the side of caution.

 

[IAmNietzche]

Not that it changes the conversation at all (shoe or legal profession), but I'm one of four associates in my summer class and the firm is definitely BigLaw, though it is in Philadelphia, not New York.

 

[New Shoes1]

Completely agree with Quadcammer.



I was a summer in 2008 and still am an associate in biglaw. I don't think that's an accurate analysis.

Firms that ding SAs are looked down upon badly--both by prospective associate candidates and (more importantly) by their peer firms. Summer 2009, and in isolated cases Summer 2008, were the only times in recent memory that SAs faced serious scrutiny due to an oversupply of summers relative to offers, where everyone carried an expectation that some associates would need to be weeded out at the end. That was due entirely to the rapidly changing economic circumstances at the time. If a firm is dinging an SA, one of three things happened: a) he/she did consistently poor work that couldn't be corrected; b) there was an incident; c) a practice group develops a significantly poor economic outlook that offer numbers shrink between interview season and the summer. It looks bad for the firm as much as the person dinged, and firms will do whatever they can to avoid it--and they do.

Now, since the supply of law students overall hasn't really changed, that means OCI and call-back interviews are much more intense than they were four or five years ago. But once you're a summer, the focus isn't on shoe color--it's on legal acumen and work performance. Signals that an associate lacks poor judgment would be: handles alcohol poorly at firm events; makes racist/sexist/insensitive comments in close company or emails; lacks punctuality or has attendance problems; has trouble meeting deadlines; and maybe dresses inappropriately in front of a client (though, on this, I think "inappropriately" is mostly going to mean under-dressed for the client by failing to wear a suit and tie).

In the extremely unlikely situation where someone thought that his shoe color was so important that the associate should be notified he made a mistake, then there should be a memo distributed to summers telling them what to wear to certain events. Multiple firms do in fact send out these types of memos. I would wager that not a single one mentions that an associate must wear black shoes to court. It would be the equivalent of telling female associates that they must wear skirt-suits (and not pant-suits) to court. No firm would ever go that far.

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.