The Fashionable Law Student
One of the more confusing aspects of the study of law is the inevitable confrontation with the fashion required of the student.
In our Lawyering class, all of our in-role exercises required showing up to class in our lawyer-costumes. There were usually vastly different opinions of what passed for the dress of a lawyer. Most learned after a few months what the general requirements were (a suit). In addition, most who had stuck out during our first exercise, mentioned this calamity to their parents, or otherwise obtained a suit.
During second semester, law firms inviting our class out to social events listed the nights’ dress code as “‘business casual,’ like our daily firm attire.” But few knew, or know what business casual actually means. In San Diego, I assumed it meant khakis and polos. And I still think that’s what it means there. But in New York it means a suit without a tie. Or with a loosened tie. Maybe it means a nice pair of black or striped slacks and the sort of shirt that would not look out of place if paired with a suit. Of course I still have no idea what passes for business casual or otherwise “lawyerly” for women. They seem to have figured it out too though. I think the moral of this paragraph is that “business casual” is a term created to confuse and frustrate people with or people looking for jobs.
At some of these law firm events, an occasional peer would ask me what I was doing there in a suit (but with no tie). I just explained that what I was wearing was business casual here. Those who disagreed were pointed to the male lawyers in the room who overwhelmingly wore the same.
Living in New York probably involves more pressure to develop a greater appreciation of fashion and the aesthetic of persons, but I expect everyone at law school experiences the same sort of education. For those of us who didn’t work in law, or a comparable business environment, it’s a steep learning curve.
Tonight I have an evening interview with a possible part-time employer. The employer works in a field with which I’m not familiar. The interview is at the law school. We’re meeting in the lobby. I really have no idea what’s appropriate to wear.
After the interview, I have a dinner with a law firm here in New York, held for everyone to whom they gave an offer. Is that business casual? Probably?
Anyhow, I think the guiding rule is to be dressed up nicer than you need to be. I’m wearing a suit with no tie to both. If the first comments about my dress, I’ll explain that I have a dinner with a firm later tonight. If the firm questions my dress, I’ll explain that I had an interview beforehand.
I suppose that a good lesson for the fashionable law student is that bets may best be hedged.
In our Lawyering class, all of our in-role exercises required showing up to class in our lawyer-costumes. There were usually vastly different opinions of what passed for the dress of a lawyer. Most learned after a few months what the general requirements were (a suit). In addition, most who had stuck out during our first exercise, mentioned this calamity to their parents, or otherwise obtained a suit.
During second semester, law firms inviting our class out to social events listed the nights’ dress code as “‘business casual,’ like our daily firm attire.” But few knew, or know what business casual actually means. In San Diego, I assumed it meant khakis and polos. And I still think that’s what it means there. But in New York it means a suit without a tie. Or with a loosened tie. Maybe it means a nice pair of black or striped slacks and the sort of shirt that would not look out of place if paired with a suit. Of course I still have no idea what passes for business casual or otherwise “lawyerly” for women. They seem to have figured it out too though. I think the moral of this paragraph is that “business casual” is a term created to confuse and frustrate people with or people looking for jobs.
At some of these law firm events, an occasional peer would ask me what I was doing there in a suit (but with no tie). I just explained that what I was wearing was business casual here. Those who disagreed were pointed to the male lawyers in the room who overwhelmingly wore the same.
Living in New York probably involves more pressure to develop a greater appreciation of fashion and the aesthetic of persons, but I expect everyone at law school experiences the same sort of education. For those of us who didn’t work in law, or a comparable business environment, it’s a steep learning curve.
Tonight I have an evening interview with a possible part-time employer. The employer works in a field with which I’m not familiar. The interview is at the law school. We’re meeting in the lobby. I really have no idea what’s appropriate to wear.
After the interview, I have a dinner with a law firm here in New York, held for everyone to whom they gave an offer. Is that business casual? Probably?
Anyhow, I think the guiding rule is to be dressed up nicer than you need to be. I’m wearing a suit with no tie to both. If the first comments about my dress, I’ll explain that I have a dinner with a firm later tonight. If the firm questions my dress, I’ll explain that I had an interview beforehand.
I suppose that a good lesson for the fashionable law student is that bets may best be hedged.
posted by neotokyotimes on
Friday, October 07, 2005
