Barrister: you look too well. Be more dowdy. Men's clothes are not an issue, why women's?

[Flappypants]

Hi

I had to attend court today because my narc STBXH (the groping speeder) is asserting I am a danger to the children and mentally unstable and so need an assessment. Mixed results for me but that's not the reason for this post. I was attending court. I wore a black below the knee shift dress with red shoes and a red, gold and black silk scarf. Dress: second hand Primark in an eBay bundle. Shoes by Schuh £6, eBay. Scarf £3.99, Oxfam. Total less than £15. I felt I looked smart, appropriate and respectful.

My barrister said to me "I must say you look a bit too, erm, well". I asked what he meant, thinking he meant I didn't look mad or unstable but he clarified that if it were a financial hearing I should look more dowdy and needy.

I kind of get what he was trying to say but a man would not be pulled up on his attire. Why a woman? I said that I had been brought up to be respectful and to dress appropriately to the situations I find myself in. He backed off a little saying that I must dress in a way that makes me feel comfortable and confident. We made light of it and I take on board the feedback but this isn't an issue for men, surely?

AIBU to think the world needs to sort its sh*t out?

I’m a barrister. Most of my work is in the High Court in the RCJ - not family though.

I think your barrister was probably spot on. I am forthright with badly dressed male clients: if you can change out of the shellsuit before you give evidence do so. Women clients less often, just because they generally have a better feel for appropriate dress anyway, but also because women can carry off a bit more variation in colour and cut.

Red shoes though? No.

There's a saying "red shoes no knickers" basically they used to be seen as prostitute attire/signal.

To be fair mens appearance at court is also judged. Among my circle if a guy's unexpectedly in a suit, especially someone who rarely wears one, they're asked if they're going to a funeral or court!

I watch a lot of crime drama and it was part of the commentary in a recent show. Joke along the lines of judges must think all criminals have good tailors!

In addition the barrister likely knows the judge and what THEIR view is likely to be.

I can’t believe it took so long for someone to say ‘red shoes, no knickers’ my nan’s been dead for well over thirty years but I can still hear her voice!

I'm in court a lot at the moment and this thread is unbelievably helpful and interesting. Thank you.

I think it’s unfair but unfortunately accurate that you would be judged by your clothes. A dark dress is absolutely fine but I would stick to neutral coloured accessories. You don’t want to give the court any reason to be focusing on your clothes instead of the dispute.

The truth is a man would be judged too if he came to court in brightly coloured shoes or wearing a red waistcoat or a silk scarf - it’s just much less likely that that would happen as men’s clothing tends to be more uniform and more plain anyway. Again that’s down to sexism (men aren’t expected to peacock, women are!) but it’s just the way things are at the moment.

Good luck with your divorce - I hope everything works out for you.

Fur coat no knickers was the saying round our way. The meaning was slightly different. It meant all show and no substance but it could also mean tarty.

I find this quite funny. I sit as a part time judge. I notice what barristers/solicitors appearing before me wear (I've seen red shoes on defence counsel before and yes it raised eyebrows). But the parties themselves? No never. Wouldn't even cross my radar.

Then you are an usual judge.

Had a case once where client comes into witness box wearing a very low cut top with sleeves that were pushed over the shoulder, so her entire top bit was exposed, if you see what I mean.

I saw the Judge visibly wince and he asked her to pull the sleeve bits up 'as you might be cold'.

not my client I hasten to add. Its just common sense. You don't want a judge focusing on your embonpoint when you give evidence.

Apparently it's a good idea to dress in a way that shows respect for the court.
Does this mean that lawyers are silly? Maybe. Does it mean that they are sexist? No.

He was right. And they do say these things to man as well. It's nothing personal.

If there is a dress code your solicitor should write it down for you before your appearance. Expecting people to just know is stupid.

I think it's completely unacceptable to comment on your appearance unless you were massively badly dressed and unclean.

OK. so old-fashioned formality is a thing... Who knew? Certainly explains why the solicitor I contacted about my late husband's estate assumed that our house would be in his sole name.

Fortunately it isn't, because he wasn't a dick.

but a man would not be pulled up on his attire

A male I know was told at 9am Monday morning he needed to be in court at 9.30. Dressed perfectly smart but no suit.

The judge felt the need to sarcastically comment on lack of suit. when really he should of been concentrating on the child who wa sin danger

Of course there are strict rules for court attire for those representing. Actually those rules are harsher for men than women. In terms of clients though, your barristers was probably trying to second guess what might irk the judge. Red shoes aren’t appropriate for court.

^ agreed. Some common sense is expected.

It’s tactics. I’ve heard this from so many barristers- for men and for women.

It’s all about how they want you to come across which won’t be too flashy. It sounds like the dress was fine, just with black shoes and maybe not the scarf. It’s much more often said about financial hearings than children stuff.

Oh and no flashy jewellery for financial hearings either. That’s a favourite.

OK, well to start with red shoes are not appropriate for court in the first place. Essentially the message you are sending to the court is I 'I am here because I need more money but I bought a new outfit just for today.' obviously if you turned up in your day to day clothes (which of course could be quite smart if you work in a corporate environment) or well worm but smart clothes like your dedicated funeral outfit then this wouldn't have the same effect. Obviously you can wear what you want but you need to be aware of the image you are projecting.

I was in court for the first time for a contact hearing last week.
I wasn’t advised by my lawyer on what to wear but I did give thought to how I would be perceived by the sheriff.
I wore a simple black dress with a small white print. I’m tall and my stbxh is only slightly taller than me. When we were together I would never have worn heels and have made a point of wearing them now I’m no longer with him but I deliberately spent money (£5) on flat pumps.
I was cursing my dress which, although is only just above the knee, when I sat down it was mid thigh.
My ex was definitely given guidance. He has a £60k a year job and dresses in £500+ worth of suit, shirt, tie and shoes everyday.
He wore trousers, brown shoes, a shirt (no tie) and a jumper 🙈
I looked sober but definitely more polished.
He looked like he’d rolled out of bed. Hadn’t had a haircut for a few weeks I’d guess.
Has had one now, a week later.
But I was terrified. And he was leaning on his elbows on the table.
I wore 2 bangles that were supposed to give me strength. They were gifts from my friends and my parents, and I rattled when he walked in.
There’s only so much you can cover/affect/influence/manipulate with clothes.

Why do you have to look unwell? Also kudos on the bargains.

I used to be a solicitor and represented people in the county and magistrates courts. If you are attending court to give evidence it is best to dress very plainly, so that there are no distractions at all from your evidence. Most people form some sort of opinion about those they meet from how they are dressed, not huge prejudicial views on the whole but we all do this, so it is best to minimise the possible effect. I would advise a client to dress plainly, in a dark colour and to keep hair and make up simple. If you are representing young men on criminal charges the need to look as if they respect the court and a (borrowed if necessary) suit with shirt and tie can make a lot of difference as the court at least can perceive they are trying.
The scarf and shoes could have been a distraction, though maybe they couldn't actually see the shoes.
I remember representing a woman on a motoring charge once in the magistrates court. The point in question was her word against that of a police officer. I was informed later by the court clerk that the three female magistrates (Cotswold ladies who lunch types) had spent some time discussing whether the fact that she was wearing white stilettos shoes affected the credibility of her evidence. he was not pleased.

You pay your barrister for advice. Take it.

This is not the hill to die on.