Tennessee Female Attorneys Urged to Wear Less Revealing Outfits

[The Straight Story]

Tennessee Circuit Judge Royce Taylor of Rutherford County doesn’t think of himself as a rigid moralist, but he couldn’t help but frown at the sleeveless dresses and low-cut blouses worn by female attorneys who appeared in his courtroom.

One woman, he told Law Blog, showed up at a workers compensation hearing wearing a golf shirt. He heard from another judge about a female lawyer who wore sweatpants.

“It’s sort of a delicate issue. I didn’t really know how to address it,” Judge Taylor said. After getting advice from local attorneys and judges, he decided it was time to draw the line, distributing a memo last week to local bar associations.

“The unanimous opinion was that the women attorneys were not being held to the same standard as the men,” Judge Taylor wrote in the memo. “I have advised some women attorneys that a jacket with sleeves below the elbow is appropriate or a professional dress equivalent…Your personal appearance in court is a reflection upon the entire legal profession.”

...

“Everybody assumed the worst. It’s basically trying to get everyone to dress professionally,” he told Law Blog. That means “a little bit more formal than going to the bar and grill next door.”

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/06/13/tennessee-female-attorneys-urged-to-wear-less-revealing-outfits/

[Sherman A1]

1. Interesting.

I would have to agree that sweatpants and a golf shirt a not appropriate for a court room appearance by an attorney.

[wickerwoman]

2. But that's not a question of "revealing"

so much as not professional attire generally. If she had worn a knee length skirt instead of sweatpants she would have been fine even though she was showing more skin.

Weird headline anyway.

[JHB]

7. The headline appears to have originated at the WSJ (reminder: a Murdock publication)

The WSJ article and the Tennessean article linked there say much about "revealing" (the closest it comes is mention of low-cut blouses and the sleeveless shirt).

The Tennessean article seems to be more informative
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20130613/NEWS01/306140020/Rutherford-County-judge-issues-dress-code-for-female-lawyers?nclick_check=1

Of course, who would read an article headlined "Tennessee judges think lawyers' professional attire has gotten too casual, instruct them to tighten their standards"?

[LostOne4Ever]

3. I always wondered

Where in the constitution it gave judges the right to suspend peoples freedom of expression. Especially when it is expressed in ways that have no real impact on the proceedings.

[dsc]

5. This has nothing to do with expression

these are lawyers going into a workplace, to do work. This is no different from your boss telling you to dress a certain way at work.

[LostOne4Ever]

11. Only Lawyers don't work for the judge

And this dress code is imposed on more than just the lawyers and the people working for the court.

[Orrex]

20. A judge typically has broad powers over his or her courtroom while court is in session.

As far as I am aware, this has typically been interpreted to cover matters of behavior and attire and in practice appear to be intended to preserve respect for the court.

[cbdo2007]

8. Where in the constitution does it give people freedom of expression?

[LostOne4Ever]

9. first amendment (nt)

[cbdo2007]

10. That says "congress shall make no law..." doesn't say anything about a judge setting rules for their

courtroom. Don't see how this is a constituation violation. Sorry!

[LostOne4Ever]

12. It also does not give the judiciary the right to make laws

And says the power to make laws is solely the responsibility of the congress...who is also prohibited from making those type of laws.

Sorry again where does the court derive this power to limit speech prior to trial?

[cbdo2007]

16. Where did it say they were making a law regarding this?? I thought the article just said

they were creating a rule for their courtroom, which the ability to do is is in the Judges Rules & Policies created by the Judicial Conference of the US, the body who creates the Rules & Policies for the Judicial system.

I'm not sure why you're having such a hard time with this. No one is creating a law here that is supressing anyone's freedom of expression.

[LostOne4Ever]

17. If its not a law

Then they should be able to dress how they feel appropriate and not get fined/arrested.

Thats not how it works.

And the Judicial conference does not have legislative power either.

You do not have free speech in a court room. The judge can fine/jail you for saying something disrespectful even if it is well within the "don't yell fire in a crowded theatre" limitation. You can not wear whatever you want in a court room even if it does not have any effect on the proceedings. If you are forced to go to court for whatever reason your rights to expression is curtailed.

Prosecutors and public defenders are public employees and if they dont follow the rules can be fired. But jurors, defendants, private lawyers should be free to wear whatever they want so long as it does not disrupt the proceeding. I fail to see how the lawyer in question style of dress does that and further fail to see on what grounds constitutionally the judge has a right to prohibit it.

[cbdo2007]

19. LOL

[treestar]

23. I'm feelin' ya

I hate judges who get so full of themselves. I remember once a guy had a casual day in his office but then suddenly had an unexpected hearing - one of those minor status conference things with only attorneys in the courtroom. The judge reamed the attorney up and down for not being dressed up in a suit. The guy had to explain it in the hearing. He was just wearing a button down shirt and slacks, nothing horrid looking.

They don't have a dress code for courtrooms either. Some family court notices tell people to dress appropriately, whatever that means, but when poor people come in, they can hardly act like assholes if they don't have some expensive suit on.

The one in sweat pants might have had some similar scheduling thing where she couldn't have time to change and did not expect to go to court.

IMO judges should not be allowed to say "my courtroom." It is the people's, the state's, not theirs. They are not teachers (I figure that's where they get it, but it's not the same).

[Orrex]

24. Tell you what--take a pizza into the courtroom gallery with you

And then chat loudly on your cellphone during cross-examination.

Then tell us how it goes when you sue the judge for creating laws to curtail your freedom of expression. I'll be interested to see how far you get with it.

[LostOne4Ever]

35. Because

It is not like I haven't said:

so long as it does not disrupt the proceeding

Every single post.

[Orrex]

42. And, ultimately, you aren't allowed to disrupt the proceedings...

Because it would be disrespectful of the court. The judge is the one who determines what constitutes disrespect in that conext, and appropriate attire is part of that, also as determined by the judge.

Look, I get it.You want to make some grand statement about freedom of expression curtailed by tyrannical judges growling on the bench, and I encourage you to test your theory the next time your local court is in session.

The bottom line is that your freedom of expression doesn't trump the judge's authority to set the rules while her court is in session.

[LostOne4Ever]

43. Nope

You are not allowed to disrupt the proceedings because it interferes with other peoples right to trial.

Not one word is said in the constitution about respecting the courts.

And if I tested that I would be fined and/or imprisoned...which is exactly my point.

The bottom line is that your freedom of expression doesn't trump the judge's authority to set the rules while her court is in session.

Quote for me where in the constitution it says that? I know it says its the supreme law of the land but it say zilch about a judges authority trumping the first amendment. Nothing. Nada. If it is so important then make an amendment to the constitution saying that. These "rules" are Ultra-Vires and based on tradition not upon any legal foundation in the constitution.

[cherokeeprogressive]

44. The Constitution doesn't say a single word about speed limits either. So go drive 120mph...

Tell me how it works out for you.

[LostOne4Ever]

46. Article 1 section 8

Yeah it kinda does.

[Orrex]

45. You have a deluded sense of what the Constitution entitles you to do.

And frankly I don't believe that you have the courage of your convictions, as the expression goes. Here's how we can test it:

Go to court in whatever outlandish outfit you can put together, and see where it gets you. You'll be laughed out of court if you're lucky. And then sue the judge for violating your first amendment rights. After you're laughed out of court for the second time, report back here to let us know how it went.

You're arguing that your right to free expression (already famously limited in a great many CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE ways) trumps the judge's authority over her courtroom. Why?

Can you point me to even one single case in the entire body of American law that supports your view on this?

[LostOne4Ever]

47. Last reply to you

And frankly I don't believe that you have the courage of your convictions, as the expression goes. Here's how we can test it

Well you see I have other more important responsibilities and don't have the time or resources for a lengthy court battle. But that does not in any way make a word that I posted wrong. So please keep with the Ad Hominem and not answering my question.

You're arguing that your right to free expression (already famously limited in a great many CONSTITUTIONALLY PERMISSIBLE ways) trumps the judge's authority over her courtroom. Why?

And in all the ways its been limited were based on the constitution in one way or another.

Why? Because we have freedom of expression and I think thats important and we should speak up for it. Now again where does it give the courts this ability? Why are you standing up for these authoritarian practices that have no basis in the actual laws of our land and against free speech especially in the context where it does not interfere with the proceedings? Why are you taking such a hostile and confrontational tone when no insult was posed to you? Why stand up against anything the government does that is unconstitutional?

Can you point me to even one single case in the entire body of American law that supports your view on this?

Tinker v. Des Moines
Texas v. Johnson
U.S. v. Eichman

Free speech cases. But why do I need to point to court cases? They are not the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. The constitution is. So again, where does it give the court this power?

Answer is, it doesn't. It is ultra vires and upheld by tradition only. But if you want to continue throwing ad hominems you can debate yourself. Cause at this point, I feel I more than made my point and all you are relying on are attacks. Im taking my sigs advice.

Ciao.

[Orrex]

48. So the short answer is, no, you can't cite a precedent

Well you see I have other more important responsibilities and don't have the time or resources for a lengthy court battle.

That's one of the oldest and lamest excuses on the internet. You had plenty of time to ramble on about your point until you were actually asked to support it. Funny how that works.

Tinker v. Des Moines
Texas v. Johnson
U.S. v. Eichman

Since I asked for a case that supports your claim that your right to free expression trumps a judge's authority in her court, and since these three cases have nothing to do with that, I will take that as your further admission that you can't support your claim.

It is ultra vires and upheld by tradition only.

Fine. Go to court and tell me how it turns out.

[Mosby]

13. its not a free speech issue.

But its not the judge's courtroom either, the judge is an employee. The county dress codes are what's important. The Judge as an employee shouldn't be making up his own rules.

[Orrex]

25. Where do you come by this information?

The judge presides over the court while court is in session, during which time she has broad latitude to establish rules.

I would be interested to review your source indicating that the judge is simply an employee with no power to set rules while court is in session.

[Mosby]

30. its just my opinion

The county in question must have a policy and procedure manual, somewhere in there they have a dress code policy. What right does a Judge, or any individual county employee have the right to add to or change the policy? I suspect that he or she doesn't have the authority to unilaterally change policy.

[Orrex]

32. It's likely that such a manual specifies "appropriate attire'

And I suspect that the judge is given latitude to determine what "appropriate" means in the context of his or her courtroom.

I mean, if we're trusting the judge to interpret the law, it doesn't seem unreasonable to trust her to say "muscle shirts are inappropriate," for instance.

[BainsBane]

4. I know, anytime a man sees my upper arms

He gets too excited to contain himself.

[antigone382]

38. It seems that in this case it really wasn't so much about "revealing" clothing...

...as it was about professional attire in general. From what I can tell, the judge wants men and women to come to court dressed in suits and looking professional. the "revealing" aspect was added by news writers looking to sell papers with a provocative headline about something that really wasn't that controversial. But I could be wrong; in addition, I don't know that I think a lot of the pomp and circumstance around judicial proceedings is really necessary, but there it is.

[BainsBane]

39. Yet a jacked with short or 3/4 length sleeves isn't professional?

They could say the requirement is to wear a jacket/blazer and dress pants or a skirt rather than fretting about arms.

[antigone382]

41. It's hard to say, because men's jackets almost always have full length sleeves.

Also, I thought I read in the OP that jackets which went past the elbow were fine, but I might have misread it.

[Nye Bevan]

6. Sweatpants are clearly inappropriate and slobbish.

I don't see the problem with a nice sleeveless dress, however.

[Ilsa]

15. The judge may

have been referring to summery dresses that are sleeveless and cut so that a lot of skin, a big rectangle of skin, below the clavicle is showing. If the sleeveless dress looks more like a sundress, it isn't appropriate.

I've run into to many situations where women don't seem to know how to dress for work. One was an intern for a school band director, an almost-college graduate, whose pants rode slightly below the waist and her top revealed her midriff when she raised her arms to conduct the orchestra. I figured she might not have had the money to get a jacket or tunic to present herself better.

I have no problem with someone requiring a more professional manner of dress.

[marions ghost]

22. I think so...You are on it about sundresses

I have been in courtrooms where the dress of a few female lawyers and staff "didn't leave much to the imagination" (as my polite old dad used to say). I remember one case where I saw all male eyes cast uniformly down in order to avoid the clearly defined black underwear of a staffer who kept running back and forth in a virtually transparent sun dress. Definitely advertizing. (I give others the benefit of the doubt, they may just be unaware).

Professional women, check your closets. It's not a good thing.

[bettyellen]

37. Once you say "sleeveless" some will wear camisoles with bras hanging out. It's inevitable!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Upscale Burqinis?

[Demo_Chris]

18. Misleading headline in the article. He wants PROFESSIONAL attire.

Seems reasonable to me.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

27. yes and he is not wrong. women dont have a work uniform quite the same way as men

in fact a long time ago someone wrote a book about creating a womans work uniform (blue suit and white top, very akin to the professional male uniform) and she got a lot of push back from fashion industry, media etc.


obviously i am using the word uniform here loosely to indicate expected attire and not mandated attire

[Recursion]

21. That seems less about being revealing and more about being slovenly

Sweatpants and sleeveless shirts are too informal for a courtroom.

[HappyMe]

26. This is about dressing professionally.

[jberryhill]

28. Which costs more for women

A man can wear the same dark suit every day, and can get a halfway decent one for around $250.

[HappyMe]

29. Well, a woman could wear the

same dark suit a few times a week. I'm pretty sure you can get a decent suit for a woman for $250. If you are smart, you can put together a mix and match wardrobe for not a whole lot.

[csziggy]

31. Women can get decent quality suits from uniform shops

They may not be "stylish" but they are better made than most suits at "women's shops" and come in a wider range of sizes than most women's clothing shops carry. They generally need to ordered rather than walk in and pick one up, so it is not super convenient. I checked them out when my husband bought work pants through a shop and was impressed at the construction. His pants were very well made, hemmed to a custom length, and cost less than the ones he had bought before at Wal-Mart.

I've thought about getting a basic black or navy suit through one of the local uniform shops but I need one about once a decade or less.

When I was called for jury duty at a federal court years ago the jury instructions said to wear "professional attire" and no T shirts or casual wear. I wore my best "professional attire" - I wore the clothes I wore for showing my horses - long sleeve Western shirt with scarf tie, pressed jeans, my good show boots, my felt hat, and my good belt with silver buckle. Several men wore similar outfits but all the other women called for jury duty wore dresses.

The judge was not concerned about my clothing. He was more upset that I could not serve on the jury since I was the primary business owner and farm manager and had no one who could run the farm if I was away every day.

[bettyellen]

36. no, she could buy a few simple dresses with sleeves for 250 bucks, or skirts and blouses with same.

cheaper than suits, actually.

[LittleBlue]

33. Sweatpants? Totally unprofessional

I would never let someone wearing sweatpants or a golf shirt represent me in court. That's just lazy.

[LWolf]

34. I get very tired of what constitutes "professional dress"

in the modern world.

My personal definition: clean clothing, in good repair, with appropriate fit, that is appropriate for the activity required. I don't think comfort is unreasonable, either.

There is nothing about a suit and tie that is "professional" outside of perception. Personally, I think ties are stupid, and, if I were male, you wouldn't catch me in one. I also strongly dislike suit jackets, which I find to be too warm and too confining. I don't have to be doing physical labor to want to be cool and to move my arms freely.

All of that said, formal occasions call for more formal wear, and there's not much that's more formal than a courtroom. More formal? Okay. It's not the Victorian era; we don't have to be distracted and offended by an arm. Ties? Okay, conforming to an expected image helps to keep a career moving forward. I get that.

Still, I think the word "professional" should refer to someone's training and conduct, not their clothing.

[Rex]

40. Judge Hathorne would be pleased.

This just in; pissant judge finds self importance - bores the crap out of the local populace and becomes a self important joke.