To ask trainee again to change her clothes

[badbelinda]

Thread inspired by recent headmistress and uniform thread. I work in a professional role that involves a lot of public interface and within that role I also mentor juniors. My current junior often wears smart jeans (usually black) and a year ago I told her I didn't think jeans were appropriate for our work setting and didn't give a very professional image. At that time she stopped wearing them for a while, changing to smart trousers which I thought was fine. She's recently started wearing jeans again and now also smart trainers. So AIBU to bring this up again? If you go to see a professional in any role, what would you think of them wearing jeans and trainers (albeit smart ones)? Am I just getting old?

Sorry that should read "most people do not..."

at the place I work staff are provided with top and are supposed to wear smart black trousers and shoes with them,

unfortunately it has had to be spelt out that it means no leggings/jeggings/ combats / shorts or really tight trousers as you need to be able to move and black means black not navy or dark grey or stripes
no trainers or sandals ( because no open toes for health and safety) and they must not be fabric for the same reason

sometimes you do just have to be very specific

Even my teens know that, whereas jeans can look smart / nice with the right top, etc, if you are going socialising, they are not 'formal' enough to wear to many work places / or interview / anywhere where you are representing your group / school / company / club / whatever somewhere formally / wedding / Christening / etc.
It's about a time and a place and dressing for the occasion. Something which you'd have expected a trainee in a professional environment to have some idea about.

I've been to an interview in jeans, I even got the job. I think it's a useful barometer of attitudes of a business. Restrictive dress codes go hand in hand with businesses stuck in the dark ages ime.

She's working in law? Then she dresses with respect, for herself, it and client.

You should have a code of conduct agreed to buy trainees/employees. It would help these niggles.

...and that's fine ILikeBirds if that's how it works in your industry / profession. My dh's interviews (and daily clothes) are the same, but law isn't. The point is, you differentiate depending on where you are going.

I think you should possibly talk to the other partners about introducing a formal dress code? Then everyone can see clearly what is and isn't acceptable. If she continues to not dress appropriately after this, you can just refer her to the dress code and explain why this is in place.

When you list qualities you look for in a solicitor, I'm guessing "a sense of fashion" doesn't come in the top 10. Most qualities (like reliability, honesty, knowledge etc) are more linked with formal business dress in people's minds.

We're not "stuck in the dark ages", thanks.

I employed a solicitor without even seeing what she looked like or what she wore - reckless!

Has someone upset you today?

As has been said countless times already on this thread, some people (obviously including you) don't care what their solicitor looks like. The majority of people, however, expect a solicitor to be in business dress. So that's what we wear. In my area of law I have enough trouble getting my clients to take me seriously because I'm a woman. I wouldn't stand a chance in jeans.

And you haven't stated whether the job you got while wearing jeans was in law.

Plus, if your boss asked you not to wear jeans because they looked unprofessional, would you carry on because you know best?

The OP said " If you go to see a professional in any role, what would you think of them wearing jeans and trainers?"

I answered the op, that's all. Seems my answer is less valid than other people's, must be because I'm wearing jeans

It all comes down to image really and if the image you wang your firm to be projecting doesn't include jeans you need to tell her, and the rationale behind it.

It's easier to say 'no jeans' than 'very smart, branded jeans are okay in the following styles but ripped, faded, studded, flared etc etc etc aren't'. If they're noticeably jeans then you potentially have a problem.

I don't wear jeans when I'm meeting with people I want to take me/my organisation seriously in terms of shaping public policy etc. I will wear jeans if I want to appear informal/put someone at ease although I still obviously wang them to take me seriously. It's the expectation of the other side that counts. The former will think 'what does she know, she's wearing jeans'. The latter will think 'she doesn't have a clue about me or my needs, she's wearing a suit'.

Part of learning to be a professional and moving in a professional sphere is dressing appropriately for your audience.

Do I have an issue with my doctor wearing jeans? No. They wash well and who wants bodily fluids on an LK Bennett dress? Besides it humanises them a bit.

Do I have an issue with a union rep accompanying me to an employment tribunal wearing jeans? Yes, because I want them to look serious and scary, not like they've come from/are off to the pub/trendy wine bar.

I don't wear jeans. I do occasionally wear casualish trousers with a nice top and lots of leggings and tunics. But then I'm not a solicitor. I'm an NHS manager and I need to be comfortable and approachable and friendly. If I've got a scary meeting I dress accordingly. OP - I'm not chuffed to read that your male colleagues 'wouldn't wear jeans. If you're making an issue of it with this person it should be an issue know to everybody. You cannot rely on people simply not doing it. If she can't there should be a documented reason why not or it starts to look like victimisation.

BTW on the trainers issue. I once employed somebody who wroe sort of canvas shoes in a dark colour to work. AFter a few months these disintegrated but they kept wearing them. I asked if they had any other shoes and they revealed they had their best shoes which were killers on the feet (and they had to walk 3 miles a day to get to and fro work plus a LOT of running round at work) or trainers (which they were wearing for the commute) or the falling apart shoes. They thought I wouldn't like the trainers. Now I knew how much this person was paid - also a training wage and what their commute already cost and I made the decision that what mattered more to me was an employer who was safe and comfortable in their shoes. On my instruction they wore trainers the rest of their contract. Looked fine and when they got a decent paid job straight from working with me the first thing they did was but good comfy, smart shoes. I would do exactly the same with any other member of staff.

Trazzletoes - what actual evidence do you have that "the majority of people expect a solicitor to be in business dress"? Do you think a majority of people prefer a solicitor to be in business dress?

Are we just making assumptions and therefore perpetuating certain traditions?

Perhaps a majority of people don't care.

Trazzletoes - what actual evidence do you have that "the majority of people expect a solicitor to be in business dress"? Do you think a majority of people prefer a solicitor to be in business dress? Are we just making assumptions and therefore perpetuating certain traditions?Perhaps a majority of people don't care

I doubt very much that the Law Society has carried out a survey of people's attitudes towards what solicitors wear with verified formal sources of empirical evidence. Just as it had probably not carried out a survey of the general public's precise understanding of fiduciary duties, such as respect owed to the employer.

What is certain is that before getting to the stage of a trainee, a potential solicitor will have spent at least 4 years and possibly more studying the subject of law at university with a heavy emphasis on practice, including office and business skills. Towards the end of that, the trainee will have realised how difficult it is to get a traineeship at the end of their student years, and during that traineeship, hopefully the importance of being kept on or at least given a good reference will have sunk in. There is constant complaint from the profession to the universities that trainees are not coming out well enough equipped to be of use when working in the profession, but it is supposed to be a vocational degree.

This trainee is not doing that well. These things should not have to be pointed out to her at this stage in her career. And definitely not more than once.

Exactly, LessMiss - no evidence exists.

I'm not disputing the fact that knowing how to dress according to one's environment is a skill. I am however disputing wild claims about what the majority of people think. Some people on this thread are just projecting their own opinions.

If it weren't a thread about a thread it would be interesting to do a snap survey in MN - 'what do you think a solicitor should wear?' I suspect most people would automatically says a suit/formal business wear regardless of whether they would care hugely if the solicitor wasn't wearing a suit. I reckon the expectation is there for most of the population.

TheFarSide Some people on this thread are just projecting their own opinions

That appears to be what you are trying to do. Who has given you the authority to lay down whether evidence is required and in which form? As for me, I am not "projecting my own opinion" - I am qualified in the profession in question and now spend my time attempting to teach these skills to students. What we are trying to do is to make students employable, and not only on graduation, but in a vocational course to go on and have a professional career. This is something that will have been drummed into this trainee from almost the word "go", and she must either be very dense or have missed a lot of lectures and reading if she is unaware of it.

I mean projecting their opinions onto the majority, or as if they are a majority view.

I am merely challenging this assumption (in addition to putting forward my own opinion).

I wouldn't want a solicitor who wasn't wearing a suit or business dress.

I never met the solicitor who sold my house for me, and have zero interest in what he was or was not wearing. I would expect a solicitor to be fairly formally dressed, but that's just because it is a fairly stuffy profession, not because it makes any difference to my opinion of them. The perception of appropriate wear within the legal profession and in the wider population (i.e. what 'ordinary' people think solicitors should wear) might well be different.

I dress pretty casually at work because my office is casual, but if I am representing the company then I am always much smarter. When our company lawyers are in court they are super smart. Just one of those business dress rules to learn really.

Can I stick my tuppence worth in? No one appears to have mentioned the Court aspect yet. If I was doing non contentious work I'd be a bit more relaxed about what I was wearing. However, I was at Court at least three days a week and my local Judges would have said something if I'd turned up in black jeans. The only concession they would make would be during summer when a notice would go up on the board, permitting the removal of suit jackets.

My company had a dress policy. Somewhat ironic that the person who flouted it most regularly was a female equity partner.

To me, jeans are just not office wear, but these things can clearly change over time (I'm not THAT old though). My aim with work clothes is to be 'unmarked' i.e. to wear things that do not intrude on the process of my work in any way. If a professonal I'm interacting with wears jeans, I do notice, and although I don't care hugely, it is a small distraction.

if you're good at your job, then it doesn't matter whether you look a little more casual

I think this is bonkers. I'm no less likely to trust a solicitor in jeans and trainers than one in a well-cut navy suit.

I dislike corporate uniform. It has no place in 2013 and it's time we ditched it.