Dressing too well?

Originally Posted by LabelKing

Click to expand...

It's sad to know that in this day one has to bow to slob convention, and the opinions of a few rather ill-informed, possibly rather stupid, individuals.

I don't think it's necessarily stupid or ill-informed. They think wearing a $300 shirt, $900 shoes, and a vintage RLPL 3-piece suit is offensive, it's just their opinion. The juror might also be offended that the lawyer has 6 different $3000 combos. The "slob" juror could have been a retired auto worker wearing 30 year old cordovan florsheims and E Levi's and looked more stylish than the lawyer.

Originally Posted by temporaryachilles

Click to expand...

I'm an attorney who has participated in several trials in West Virginia before 'retiring' back into a corporate practice. I don't think I'll be very popular for the following comments, but here goes. Most of the people who participate on this forum are freaks. Ordinary men do not pay nearly as much attention to fashion or style, and they see men who do as snobbish or elitist.

I think you make some valid points, but it's too bad you felt you needed to call most of the men who participate here "freaks" which was totally unecessary and weakens your argument. You know what I call a guy who participates on a board where he thinks the majority of participants are "freaks?" A DOUCHE!!!!

Have a nice day.

I probably wouldnt wear french cuffs or a contrast collar shirt to a jury trial. I would wear french cuffs before a judge, but even if it is just a motion hearing, I almost always wear a white shirt. Where I am from, the only exception is light blue shirts with button down collars. Anything else is perceived as trying to draw attention to yourself. According to some, it also creates the impression that you are not serious.

For the same reasons, as much as I like them, I probably wouldnt wear a pocket square - even white linen - to anything other than an event or something where it was acceptable to be dressed up more than usual. Even my wife thinks things


And btw,

Dewey;1184821 said:

Oh yeah? Well, guess what. Your momma has a wooden leg--with a kick stand.

Fatlip, I think you meant peg leg.

Click to expand...

I agree with skinnygoomba. one guy shouldn't make you reconsider your whole wardrobe.

..

Bad luck, it happens! Clothing is, was, and will be a sign of social status, whatever the society in which you live. You stumbled upon a person who, probably, had already a preconception about lawyers, that had bad experiences with lawyers (personally or in his family) so he fitted you in the mental category of "slick lawyers". One of the problems that I see more with the american society (from outside, over the pond) is that is more or less a society where "uniforms" are required for every social role, and conformity is a must. It works more with mental images than with reality, that's why your politicians dress in a dull fashion!
My only advice will be to drop the contrast collars, to see if your suits are not too shiny, and if you wear cufflinks do not put too much "bling"! The "G. Gekko fashion" was meant by O. Stone to epitomize the "Wall Street shark", not to describe a desirable sartorial landmark. Look at how the Prince of Wales or Albert de Monaco dress in public appearances - nothing too flashy, extremely good cut and fit, but subdued colors, etc. They are not "men of the people", but they not look as "players". In your legal system (jury based) you have to work also with people that have "class prejudice" and can take their jury duty as a mean to get back to the system. Middle of the road choices cannot be wrong - wear solid whites and blues in shirts, grey suits, not to visible shoes - how many US politicians had you seen wearing, in public contrast collars, antiquated brown shoes and pocket squares?
That is the answer to your question, IMHO.

While it's disconcerting that dressing nicely would make you seem distrustful, I can't say I'm completely shocked by the juror's comments. After all, just take a look at the presidential race and how dressing too well is seen as a problem that distances you from "common" citizens and can make you seem elitist.

Last year, I had some pretty important examinations to take. I wore my worst suit - a cheap locally made suit in a charcoal grey, high stance 3B SB, a bit too long in the body and sleeves and legs (well, as SF would judge it). This was something that I wouldn't even wear to work on a normal day never mind my last examination ever. I did wear a white FC shirt with knots. I made sure that I wasn't too smart. No 3 piece, no 'odd' colours and no pocket square. You need to be careful as others have said.

If ever I'm chosen for jury duty or something of a similar public nature, I'm going to wear my grey three-piece and all my watch-chains and fobs, reeking of the most potent and musky scent I have.

Originally Posted by Motol12

Click to expand...

"...with the cufflinks and pocket thingy and everything you just screamed 'slick, silver-tounged lawyer' and I couldn't really trust what you were saying."
You need to watch more movies, friend. Every movie-watcher knows that to win over a jury, a lawyer needs to do three things:

1. Wear a seersucker suit with braces.
2. Carry a hand fan.
3. Begin every sentence with the phrase, "Well, I may be just a simple country lawyer, but..."

Originally Posted by Motol12

Click to expand...

A funny thing happened to me in court today. The verdict came back in a five day trial I had been on, and the defendant was found not guilty on all counts, I lost big time. Any time I finish a trial and I have time, and the judge agrees, I ask if any of the jurors are interested in speaking with me about the case. This time one of the jurors told me "I really found myself distracted by how you were dressed. I mean, with the cufflinks and pocket thingy and everything you just screamed 'slick, silver-tounged lawyer' and I couldn't really trust what you were saying." That really surprised me, so I remembered what I wore on all four days of the trial, and I'm just wondering what your thoughts are on the waredrobe choices and if you share the opinion of the juror.

Day 1 (jury selection, opening statements, some witnesses): White french cuff shirt from Brooks Brothers, grey pinstripe Hickey Freeman 'Madison', and a solid medium blue necktie.

Day 2: (More witnesses): Light blue contrast coller french cuff shirt from Ben Silver, three-piece navy pinstriped suit suit from RLPL (vintage), and a red necktie with a subdued white paisely print necktie from JoS A. Bank.

Day 3: (More witnesses): White french cuff shirt with blue/grey stripes from Armani Collezioni, brown nailhead suit from Paul Stuart, and a grey necktie with white pencil stripes.

Day 4: (More witnesses): French blue button cuff shirt from Ben Silver, charcoal grey suit from the JoS A. Bank Signature Gold collection, and a black necktie with french blue dots (small but noticable) from Ralph Lauren Chaps.

Day 5: (Final witnesses, closing arguments and jury deliberation): Bespoke white french cuff shirt from Turnbull and Asser, navy suit from Brooks Brothers Golden Fleece, and a red necktie with navy blue pencil stripes from Brooks Brothers.

Day 6: (jury deliberation and verdict): Ecru button-cuff shirt from JoS. A Bank, tan suit from Ben Silver, and a medium and light blue alternating dot tie with a tan box pattern around each dot from Bill Blass.

On all days but three I wore black wingtip shoes (brown on day three,) and on every day I wore a linen pocket square with an architect fold.

This might seem petty and strange, but this trial was the result of several years of preparation and I'd hate to think that something I take pride in (my appearence) had a measured effect on the outcome.

I don't see that you mention the "pocket thingy" in your descriptions. For what it's worth, I think you would have been fine if you had skipped the French cuffs, skipped the pocket thingies, and skipped the contrasting collars. As well (over) dressed as I am inclined to be, those three things tend to arouse suspicion in me, too. High quality is good. Flashy is not. I reserve French cuffs for the evening.

Originally Posted by temporaryachilles

Click to expand...

I'm an attorney who has participated in several trials in West Virginia before 'retiring' back into a corporate practice. I don't think I'll be very popular for the following comments, but here goes. Most of the people who participate on this forum are freaks. Ordinary men do not pay nearly as much attention to fashion or style, and they see men who do as snobbish or elitist.

If you have to make a good impression with ordinary guys, observe how they dress and then try to match it without looking too obvious. If you see them at church, I bet you'll see lots of Dockers and J.C. Penney suits. The words Kiton, John Lobb, and Zegna mean nothing to them. Ordinary guys don't have the money or inclination to buy this stuff. They also resent having the fact that they are relatively unsophisticated shoved down their throat, and that is exactly what happens when attorneys parade in front of captive juries with a super 180s sheen reflecting the light and linen squares poking out of chest pockets. They don't appreciate our hobby, and trial is not the place to indulge.

I once worked with a litigator who had an interesting approach to his wardrobe. Outside of the courtroom, he wore nice, well-tailored suits with quality shirts and ties -- clothes commensurate with his position in society. At trial, he wore an inexpensive, ill-fitting suit in order to be perceived as an ordinary guy who was forced to dress up for court. It worked well for him.

I too agree this is spot on.

When i read the description of his outfit all i could think of was a sleazy old car salesman, drenched in strong cologne or a pimp in a purple suit and purple gators with a feather in his cap.

Do you trust any of those?They may have a nice car or some fine hoes, but their appearance just doesn't make you trust their product. So no deal.

I'll agree that the cufflinks go too far sometimes - not in terms of style, but perhaps level of trust with some one. That, coupled with shirts with contrasting collars. It's similar to a bow-tie in my opinion.

This thread makes me that much happier about working in finance.

+1 for working in finance. +2 for being in the product management/marketing side. There was a thread a while back where an attorney on the forum, mentioned that for trails, he wears Mens Warehouse suits. He found that it was necessary to dress as such, so as not to distract the jury. It worked for him, perhaps the advice granted in this thread would be of benefit for the OP. On another note, when asking folks for feedback, I've found its generally best to approach it in a positive context. E.g., avoid asking a person or a group (especially) what was "wrong" with your product/presentation. People are contrast matchers by nature and when asked, will always find something wrong, even when it wasn't that meaningful to them. To experiment, ask several people today "what is wrong with what I'm wearing today?" Most people will find something, even if it hadn't be noticeable prior to your asking. Instead, ask what worked for them, what points were compelling, etc. When it comes time to ask negative questions, ask them in a specific manner; E.g., "For point A, was that believable or not?" , vs "what didn't you like about me?". Directing the audience will help you avoid receiving misleading negative comments. I've been amazed at the clarity of answers one can recieve when avoiding the "tell me what went wrong", and targeting the line of questioning.