credentials might be judged by how she dresses?

[JessieMcJessie]

I have just been reading an article in which a number of top female divorce lawyers are interviewed. Among their “Top Tips”:

“What you wear in Court matters: Sandra Davis suggests that mothers negotiating 'children matters' such as contact arrangements should wear 'something soft, nothing too sharp with edges'.

I am taken aback at this suggestion that a woman has to dress in a particular way to maximise the chances of gaining access to her children. Are judges really that easily swayed by the lack of a cashmere cardigan?

Fine for a judge to ascertain honesty by listening to testimony and measuring against solid facts. But it does scare me that access to kids could hinge on whether mum wore a cardigan or dad put on a tie. If judges are allowing such superficiality to sway them, it's telling me they need more training on the effects of unconscious bias.

I do think that is okay to expect people generally to be clean and smart in court - it is about respect, but beyond clean and smart, clothing should have no significance to outcome.

People do judge based on how you dress. I've been known to cross the street because of a dodgy looking person, an assumption which is mostly based on the way they're dressed. And I remember being part of a panel interviewing a woman for a job - she didn't get it because her backless dress was considered to be inappropriate for the office and they thought her style would come across as unprofessional.

TinaTop, Judges aren't p'eople', or the level of job interviewers.

Birds the lawyer’s advice was about how a judge would perceive the client. The same judges hear the high worth cases and the ones where there are few assets. So I took it that her comment about how judges think could be relevant in any case.

I know this thread has moved on, but I don't think you're being hypocritical to start this thread, whatever you may think about tracksuits.

Seems to me that the lawyer's advice suggests a lack of transparency in the expectations around clothing in court, and that really is objectionable.

Whatever we may individually think about tracksuits, by and large, most know they're not acceptable for court. If you don't know, the most rookie of rookie solicitors would be able to tell you that they're not the preferred mode of dress.

But how many women would know they had to dress 'softly'? Would an inexperienced solicitor know to tell his or her female client to break out the pastels? Or is this something you have to work out after conducting many cases in the family courts?

Nicely put JamieVardys 😀.