Lawyers, Law Students and Professionals - Suit advice, please.

[Ace309]

I'm a first-year law student and have final oral arguments coming up for the moot court portion of my legal research and writing class. The project involved researching and producing an appellate brief in pairs, with an oral argument as the culmination of the project. Because the record presented two issues, the idea was that the partners work largely on one issue, and each issue is argued in succession.

"Business attire" is the code for final arguments. Here's the rub - because we had an uneven number of people in the section, my group was issued a third partner. Since my two partners collaborated on the first issue of the brief, we have to do two oral arguments so that each partner gets a chance to argue. I worked alone on my half, and so I argue twice. No big deal.

... except that she scheduled our arguments on two different nights. My wardrobe is not extensive, and I only own two suits. One is dark grey, and one is brown. (It's the one brown suit in the hemisphere that looks good on me.)

On the one hand, it seems silly to wear the same suit to class on two consecutive days, and I worry that being seen in the same suit by the same panel both nights will look unprofessional. On the other, I worry that a brown suit looks unprofessional, too.

So, the question is, do I rewear the grey suit, or do I wear the brown suit one day?

Also, when I wear the brown suit, I generally wear a light-blue shirt and a tie that matches both of them (I have several, whereas most of my 'power ties' won't work as well). The coloring looks fabulous on me. However, it's markedly softer than the "dark suit, stiff white shirt and red tie" look that I expect the people who only argue once will all be wearing (and that I'll be wearing at least once). If I end up wearing the brown suit, should I opt for wearing a white shirt or should I stick with my standard?

Thanks in advance for the advice.

[Mr. Excellent]

Um. Perhaps I'm being hopelessly naive - but isn't a suit a suit? You're a year out of undergrad- how many suits does the law school expect you to own?

My guess would be that so long as you show up to class in a suit that approximates a state of cleanliness, that'll be fine.

[zamboniracer]

I second what Mr. Excellent said.

The only acceptable alternative is to wear the brown tuxedo Joe Pesci wore to court in My Cousin Vinny

[Amp]

You do realize that most people only have two or three good suits and a ton of shirts and ties that go with them right? I do not think that it would be looked at as unprofessional. At least that has not been my experience in the professional world.

[PunditLisa]

Wear the grey suit again but change the tie. And, of course, polish your shoes.

[pravnik]

First things first: relax, because your judges likely know that your wardrobe is not yet extensive and will not count off if you wear the same suit twice. My fellow law students were in shock the day I showed up wearing a nice grey pinstripe suit. I got it at Goodwill for seven bucks, and though it's not my favorite suit it's nice enough that I'll still wear it occasionally. My dad, a 30+ year trial lawyer, is a notoriously underdresser; he showed up for court in a suit once and the judge pretended not to know him and asked to see his bar card. Obviously, newer law types like you or I can't get away with that yet.

My own rule is that for oral arguments or jury trials, starched white shirts, softer stuff with the colored shirts for lesser hearings or pleas or whatever. Most other lawyers seem to adhere to this rule as well, although I don't know if it's just coincidence or if it's an unspoken rule. Brown suits aren't unprofessional per se--if it looks professional to you, you're probably okay.

[Waverly]

Change the shirt color, the tie, the shoes, and the belt. No one will notice that the suit is the same.

Just hit the suit lightly with an iron or a steamer after the first night. Since it isn't getting a chance to air, you'll have to help it along.

[Abbie Carmichael]

Mini hijack:

So what was the legal scenario you were given for your appellate brief?

[Ace309]

Long story short, it's a medical malpractice case appealed from a Superior Court in Chatauqua County, New York, to the Appellate Division. In the first issue, a pair of recently-decided cases in New York's appellate division had to be applied to determine whether the current case law or a reasonable application of it allows for a mother to collect emotional distress damages for the death of a live-born baby (as opposed to a stillborn baby, in which case it's specifically allowed under the recent cases). The pregnant mother went to the hospital, where she was essentially ignored by the staff of the hospital despite signs that the baby was in distress. The baby was born, but died a day later. The argument is essentially whether a bright-line rule allowing recover for a stillborn baby but not a baby who happened to be born but died later from injuries stemming from the hospital's negligence is acceptable, or whether the recent cases created a loophole that needs to be fixed.

The second issue, which I focused on, dealt with whether a private cause of action should be implied for the mother from New York's Public Health Law - specifically, the Patient's Bill of Rights. There's an enforcement mechanism, but it involves the health commissioner (who has no duty to act on complaints), and the money paid out by the hospital is funneled back into the health care system rather than paid out to the person whose rights were violated. There's a three-prong test (incorrectly applied by the lower court by evaluating only the first prong) to determine whether a private right of action can fairly be implied from a statute that doesn't explicitly grant it.

The defendant hospital moved for summary judgment. The lower court denied it and the defendant hospital appealed. I'm representing the plaintiff-respondent mother.

[Campion]

If you're a 1L, you're doing OCI in the fall. In which case, you will wear the same suit every day for a month. (We had lockers at school, so wore street clothes for class, then changed for interviews.) You'll also wear the same suit to all your callbacks. So use this as an opportunity to try out your brown suit and see what people think. Or use it as an opportunity to change up the look with your other suit.

Amp, PunditLisa, pravnik et al. have it right -- most guys have a couple three good suits, and simply change them up with different shirts, ties, etc. Me? I'd wear the "power" suit the first night and the brown suit the second night. Why not, if it looks good on you? (It's not like they'll take points off for clothing choice.)

By the way, in case no one's told you yet, the phrase "with all due respect" should not come out of your mouth at oral argument. It's lawyer-speak for "I don't respect you at all." Something no one tells you until you say it to a judge. Good luck!

[Cliffy]

Don't wear the brown suit. In the legal setting it's about as gauche as a man wearing an earring. According to legend, Chief Justice Rehnquist once sent an attorney home to change because she showed up for oral argument in a brown suit. If you wear it, you won't get marked down, but if the panel is meant to give you feedback on your argument it's an even chance that they'll mention the color of your suit. I would. That's because in real life, you would be marked down for it.

The same suit on two days is perfectly fine. In this setting, If I were you I'd wear a white shirt one day and blue the next.

--Cliffy

[Campion]

Originally Posted by Cliffy

Don't wear the brown suit. In the legal setting it's about as gauche as a man wearing an earring.

Yeah, a disclaimer regarding the brown suit: I'm on the West Coast, where "business attire" is less formal than back East, so I think the brown suit would be fine. But this is the wild west where, for example, a woman can wear a pantsuit to court, whereas I understand that in DC or New York, that's the functional equivalent of showing up to court naked.

[Billdo]

A friend of mine is a Legal Research and Writing adjunct professor, and for the past bunch of years I have assisted him as a judge in his final moot court oral argument. My short answer is that it doesn't matter one damn bit.

When I'm judging moot court (both in his class and elsewhere), I barely notice the clothes of the advocate, provided they are professionally dressed. I recognize that, particularly as first years, they don't have an extensive professional wordrobe. If you have an innocuous grey suit, you could probably wear it two weeks before I noticed (but I'm somewhat unobservant on those types of points). Two nights in a row would be find. Similarly, if it is a professional brown suit, that would be fine as well.

This year, I noticed that one of the advocates was wearing what I thought was an outfit that was perfectly fine under the circumstances, but might be thought a bit informal in some of the local courts (she'd be fine in state civil court, but probably a little underdressed for federal). I whispered this to the Professor and asked if I should comment, and he said, emphatically, that I should not. He later explained that there had been an issue in a prior year where someone had commented on a female advocate's outfit in a way she considered inappropriate, so the dress of the advocates was not something to be taken into consideration. I have no idea whether your school has a similar policy.

Good luck on your oral argument.

[Billdo]

Originally Posted by Campion

Yeah, a disclaimer regarding the brown suit: I'm on the West Coast, where "business attire" is less formal than back East, so I think the brown suit would be fine. But this is the wild west where, for example, a woman can wear a pantsuit to court, whereas I understand that in DC or New York, that's the functional equivalent of showing up to court naked.

Not any more. Here in New York women commonly wear pants suits to court all the time. Years ago I heard that some federal judges took issue with women lawyers in pants suits, but not recently. In state trial courts, you see them all the time, and I even saw them when I was recently in the Appellate Division (intermediate appellate court).

[Q.N. Jones]

We had moot court at Harvard, too. Everyone wore suits but no one got as worried about it as you are. I understand the worry about making sure you're wearing a "conservative" suit when interviewing, but any presentable suit was good enough for moot court. Either option is just fine.

I wore a very uptight conservative black Austin Reed suit to my moot court orals. My partner's suit was an outlandish purple. Nobody cared--or, at least, nobody commented.

I'd probably wear the brown if I were you.

[Q.N. Jones]

Originally Posted by Cliffy

Don't wear the brown suit. In the legal setting it's about as gauche as a man wearing an earring. According to legend, Chief Justice Rehnquist once sent an attorney home to change because she showed up for oral argument in a brown suit. If you wear it, you won't get marked down, but if the panel is meant to give you feedback on your argument it's an even chance that they'll mention the color of your suit. I would. That's because in real life, you would be marked down for it.

The same suit on two days is perfectly fine. In this setting, If I were you I'd wear a white shirt one day and blue the next.

--Cliffy

The Supreme Court is a totally different story from a law school moot court, or even an every day average court appearance. It's like going to the White House for dinner--there is a whole special set of etiquette rules that don't apply to the rest of the world.

Brown suits are considered less formal than black, dark grey, navy blue, or pinstripe. But they're just a notch or two down. So, while they're not acceptable at the Supreme Court, you can wear a brown suit to appear in a trial court and sometimes even at an appellate court or state supreme court. (Of course, there are some wacko judges out there--I know one who sends women home for wearing trousers--but they're hardly representative.) I don't know where Cliffy practices, but I practiced in the Midwest, and brown suits were not considered universally gauche. Far from it. They're just considered too informal for certain occasions.

The rule of thumb that I've observed is that one doesn't wear "funny colored" suits to VERY SERIOUS OCCASIONS. If moot court is taken THAT SERIOUSLY at your school, then don't wear the brown suit. I rather doubt it's taken that seriously, though. It sure wasn't at my school.

[Campion]

Originally Posted by Q.N. Jones

My partner's suit was an outlandish purple.

If your partner now practices law in Sacramento, I must tell you he still has the purple suit. And wears it to court.

[SlyFrog]

Originally Posted by Q.N. Jones

(Of course, there are some wacko judges out there--I know one who sends women home for wearing trousers--but they're hardly representative.)

As an aside, I wish that judges like that would have their fascist authority complexes turned sideways and shoved up their asses.

Don't get me wrong. I understand the need for authority and respect for institutions. I am not a raving anarchist. I do not, for example, want to hear cellphones going off or gum being chewed or popped in a court room. Nor do I want to see people (if they can afford better) showing up in sweatpants or jeans.

But there is also taking something too far, and over the years I've gotten sick of bumping into courtrooms with peculiar and stupid rules that really appear to be there to satisfy the ego and authoritarian tendencies of a judge.

Justice is supposed to be blind, and available to the rich, the poor, the smart, and the stupid. Judges who send women home for wearing pants suits, or men home for wearing brown suits, worry me a bit. I think they should worry a bit more about making a wise decision, and a bit less about whether they are being shown the proper level of respect by counsel based on how shiny counsels' shoes are.

[Q.N. Jones]

Originally Posted by Campion

If your partner now practices law in Sacramento, I must tell you he still has the purple suit. And wears it to court.

Nah, my partner was a she--which made the purple suit somewhat less outlandish, but not by much--and I don't think she actually practices.

[Ace309]

Originally Posted by Q.N. Jones

The Supreme Court is a totally different story from a law school moot court, or even an every day average court appearance. It's like going to the White House for dinner--there is a whole special set of etiquette rules that don't apply to the rest of the world.

Man, and here I already bought my morning coat.

Thanks, everyone, for the advice. As it turns out, one of the judges had to cancel, and so I now have a good six days in between arguments - plenty of time to air out the dark grey suit, so I'll feel a lot more comfortable with it.

[Atticus Finch]

See, if you guys would just adopt barrister's robes, you'd save yourselves a lot of trouble.

[jackelope]

Fellow 1-L here. We had our Freshman Moot Court Competition before the graded oral arguments, wihch was nice since we got some practice in. It was a double-elimination tournament; my partner and I argued four times before losing our second one (a record with which I am perfectly happy).

I wore my gray suit, blue shirt, and red tie all four times. No one noticed, as far as I know. Or maybe they're all aware that I'm a fashion disaster and were just being polite. Either way is fine with me.

If you're interested, our hypo was a guy caught at night outside a Federal Reserve Bank (but inside the perimeter fence), hiding in a dumpster with crudely drawn plans for a break-in and a gun. He was a prior felon, and my issue was whether his being a felon in possession of a firearm counts as a "crime of violence" under the 1984 Bail Reform Act, and is thus sufficient to trigger a detention hearing to consider whether to deny bail. We weren't told what his predicate felony was; the issue here is whether felon-in-possession is itself a crime of violence. Interesting stuff, I thought.

My partner's issue was that the prosecution drew up the indictment wrong, forgetting to include a charge of "attempted breaking and entering" with the charge of actual breaking and entering. Since he was caught outside the building, my partner (representing the government) had to argue that it wasn't a fatal flaw in the indictment.

Whee!

[pravnik]

Originally Posted by Cliffy

Don't wear the brown suit. In the legal setting it's about as gauche as a man wearing an earring. According to legend, Chief Justice Rehnquist once sent an attorney home to change because she showed up for oral argument in a brown suit. If you wear it, you won't get marked down, but if the panel is meant to give you feedback on your argument it's an even chance that they'll mention the color of your suit. I would. That's because in real life, you would be marked down for it.

I had a professor in law school, notoriously crazy as the proverbial shithouse mouse, who argued a case (and ultimately won) before the U.S. Supreme Court in a tuxedo. I'm talking full on satin lapels and bow tie "Bond, James Bond" tuxedo. I think he handwrote his brief, too. I saw a video and it was awe inspiring. The Honorable Court must have been dumbfounded.

[Bricker]

My goodness.

In Virginia's criminal courts - especially the General District Court, which is the court of original jurisidiction for misdemeanors and the place for probable cause and bond hearings for felony cases - it's not unusual to see defense lawyers in sports coats rather than suits.

Circuit courts - trial courts for felonies and de novo appeals from misdemeanor and traffic cases - generally saw suits, although no one would cavil at a brown suit.

Argument in front of the Court of Appeals was about the first level in which I might question a brown suit.

I have to dress better now, in the government contracting world, than I did then.

[Hey, It's That Guy!]

I'm a staff attorney, so I don't interact with the public or appear in court at all. I have a good charcoal suit, a brown suit that was a hand-me-down from my father (although I got it altered to fit me and it still looks professional, IMO), and a black pinstriped double-breasted suit that I consider a bit too "gangsterish" to wear to work. That one was a holdover from my swingin' sax player days. I also have a black sport coat and an indigo (not navy) sport coat that I often wear with black or khaki slacks. Nobody has ever complained about my work clothes, and I've actually gotten a few compliments on my shirt/tie combinations. If you wear nice shirts and ties, that's the key to pulling off any outfit.

[Hey, It's That Guy!]

I should note that when I did my clinic with the Office of the State Attorney, those guys wore navy blazers, white shirts, and khakis a lot more often than they wore suits, and they appeared in court on a daily basis. But this was in a smaller town, and these were mostly the traffic and misdemeanor prosecutors.