OCI/callbacks/etc Men's Clothing Mega-thread

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
User avatar
OperaAttorney
Posts: 517
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 11:48 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby OperaAttorney » Sun Jun 07, 2009 9:48 am

Nice work, Pufer. You won't catch me in pleated pants, though. Never. :lol:

User avatar
neskerdoo
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:13 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby neskerdoo » Sun Jun 07, 2009 9:53 am

Joan Manuel Serrat wrote:
richard wrote:This topic is gay. You're all gay.


this is not acceptable. you can no go calling people gay and, of more important, you can no go using "gay" as a insult. i am no gay and i have no conection to the gay. i have a girlfriend. but i know how the gays may see offense in what you speak because i know how hatefull people can be to difference and foreign. what if "richard" become the new "gay" and people go say "that is very richard" when they mean "that is a gay." will you be offended? will you go into a box and hide like a fear child? will you feel insult? yes! i say this like a friend, be careful what word you use because you can be playing but you can hurt people and make them feel inferiority. you have no privilege to act this way to other people and we will not allow you to do this. people like kindness and gracefull not childish and insult. like we say, "El perico dice lo que sabe, pero no sabe lo que dice." "The parrot says what it know but does no know what it says." You say the only things you know, but you may not know what you say in reality. i hope you take my advice and maybe get good of it. i learn from a mistake i made before and i want to help you understand to get better as a person. i hope you understand how I wrote! :)



haha @ 'no connection to teh gay'

User avatar
neskerdoo
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:13 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby neskerdoo » Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:07 am

Pufer, what about matching ties to beards? Any advice?

Tave
Posts: 58
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 7:08 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Tave » Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:41 am

Tagged so I can read Pufer's novel at my leisure.

User avatar
dextermorgan
Posts: 1138
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:37 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby dextermorgan » Sun Jun 07, 2009 10:43 am

Tanks for the post puffer. I'll direct everyone who asks the same tired questions about suits to it.

User avatar
spanktheduck
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 4:23 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby spanktheduck » Sun Jun 07, 2009 1:56 pm

thanks pufer

User avatar
Joan Manuel Serrat
Posts: 66
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 10:10 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Joan Manuel Serrat » Sun Jun 07, 2009 2:10 pm

pufer if i ask without insult you, why did you choose that name "pufer"? it sound like asthma or a alaska penguin bird thing. also, is that you in the photograph? that's a lot of red hair and a glorious beard!

User avatar
Pufer
Posts: 309
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:32 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Pufer » Sun Jun 07, 2009 3:10 pm

neskerdoo wrote:Pufer, what about matching ties to beards? Any advice?


If your suit color is appropriate for your color of hair and you're matching your ties to your suit, there should be no issue. ;)

Joan Manuel Serrat wrote:pufer if i ask without insult you, why did you choose that name "pufer"? it sound like asthma or a alaska penguin bird thing. also, is that you in the photograph? that's a lot of red hair and a glorious beard!


Pufer is a misspelling of "puffer," as in the fish. When I was a youth and signing up for my first email account, I had a number of stuffed (as in taxidermy, not like fuzzy stuffed toys) puffer fish hanging from the ceiling of my room. Being a youth, I wasn't too hot on perfect spelling, however, and entered the name wrong. I didn't realize at the time that I could just get another email with it spelled correctly and figured that I was stuck with it. It's always available, though, so I'm Pufer just about everywhere on the internet (except, for some reason, on eBay, where there's another Pufer kicking around).

That is a picture of me, although it's about a year old and I have different glasses now.

To bring this in line with the topic, if at all possible, your glasses should match your other accessories. I actually heard someone being given shit about this while wearing his interview suit (thankfully, though, not by an interviewer). You probably shouldn't be wearing bronze and brown frames with a silver watch and black belt. Not much you can really do about this one if you don't have silver and black frames, but it might be something to keep in mind when you get your next pair of glasses.

-Pufer

hayduke
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 4:13 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby hayduke » Sun Jun 07, 2009 3:20 pm

Have bowties broken out of the south yet? I though I saw something in NYT a while ago how they were beginning to, but not sure.

User avatar
uhoh123
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby uhoh123 » Sun Jun 07, 2009 3:21 pm

Pufer wrote:
neskerdoo wrote:Pufer, what about matching ties to beards? Any advice?


If your suit color is appropriate for your color of hair and you're matching your ties to your suit, there should be no issue. ;)

Joan Manuel Serrat wrote:pufer if i ask without insult you, why did you choose that name "pufer"? it sound like asthma or a alaska penguin bird thing. also, is that you in the photograph? that's a lot of red hair and a glorious beard!


Pufer is a misspelling of "puffer," as in the fish. When I was a youth and signing up for my first email account, I had a number of stuffed (as in taxidermy, not like fuzzy stuffed toys) puffer fish hanging from the ceiling of my room. Being a youth, I wasn't too hot on perfect spelling, however, and entered the name wrong. I didn't realize at the time that I could just get another email with it spelled correctly and figured that I was stuck with it. It's always available, though, so I'm Pufer just about everywhere on the internet (except, for some reason, on eBay, where there's another Pufer kicking around).

That is a picture of me, although it's about a year old and I have different glasses now.

To bring this in line with the topic, if at all possible, your glasses should match your other accessories. I actually heard someone being given shit about this while wearing his interview suit (thankfully, though, not by an interviewer). You probably shouldn't be wearing bronze and brown frames with a silver watch and black belt. Not much you can really do about this one if you don't have silver and black frames, but it might be something to keep in mind when you get your next pair of glasses.

-Pufer


Pufer name origin story= AWESOME

EmVan
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 12:26 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby EmVan » Mon Jun 08, 2009 4:06 pm

Not sure if this was posted, but there's a really good thread about the same subject here:

http://www.lawstudents.ca/forums/viewto ... 25&t=14666

Cheers,

User avatar
badlydrawn
Posts: 145
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 12:11 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby badlydrawn » Mon Jun 08, 2009 11:46 pm

Would it be acceptable to wear these
--ImageRemoved--
or
these
--ImageRemoved--
with any of these grays?
ImageImage
--ImageRemoved--
Do you think the brogue is too much?
--ImageRemoved--

User avatar
Joan Manuel Serrat
Posts: 66
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 10:10 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Joan Manuel Serrat » Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:08 am

badlydrawn wrote:Would it be acceptable to wear these
or
these
with any of these grays?
Do you think the brogue is too much?


these look like lift shoes for short people who need boost like Sarkozy.

User avatar
RudeDudewithAttitude
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 10:50 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby RudeDudewithAttitude » Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:17 am

YankeeFan wrote:My father uses a farily prominent custom tailor, and, thus I also have a few suits from him.


I was BORN and BRED for SUCCESS and ACHIEVEMENT.


I am so glad this thread got bumped so I could read this post. He didn't bother adding anything helpful, just gloating. So funny. :lol:

Clever username
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 1:50 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Clever username » Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:25 am

RudeDudewithAttitude wrote:
YankeeFan wrote:My father uses a farily prominent custom tailor, and, thus I also have a few suits from him.


I was BORN and BRED for SUCCESS and ACHIEVEMENT.


I am so glad this thread got bumped so I could read this post. He didn't bother adding anything helpful, just gloating. So funny. :lol:


For some reason the unnecessary use of "and" and the odd use of commas struck me as amsuing as well.


On a more serious note, how often and for what will one need a suit for 1L? I currently have one, but it's black and about six years old. Just curious if I need to update.

User avatar
Pufer
Posts: 309
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:32 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Pufer » Tue Jun 09, 2009 2:12 am

badlydrawn wrote:Would it be acceptable to wear these
<img>
or
these
<img>
with any of these grays?
<img><img>
Do you think the brogue is too much?
<img>


In general, lighter grays (not charcoal) can be worn with any brown shoe (and belt). Charcoal is more traditionally black territory, but you can get away with brown easier with it than you can with a navy suit.

I'm going to go ahead and assume, too, that you're not going to actually be wearing this to anything important and are just asking this in general. Those pictures are all of country shoes (by design, I think - isn't Aiden's big thing making old-country country and deck shoes?), which are not formal, not dressy, and would be unacceptable in any discerning business environment that I'm aware of, law or not. I'd compare it to someone showing up to a legal function in cowboy boots.

Granted, with your pants covering the upper half of those shoes, you could probably get away with it wandering around town (just as you could with cowboy boots). You could also probably get away with it assuming that nobody either gives a damn or knows that those shoes, by rule (not necessarily by appearance), are unacceptable (similar, again, to cowboy boots). That said, of the three pics, the unbrogued ones would be the most likely to pass as being acceptable. Broguing draws attention.

Broguing is cool so long as you're wearing oxfords and they are fully brogued. This is to say that traditional wingtips are fine. If they are less than fully brogued (and aren't cap-toes) and not oxfords (basically, if they aren't the prototypical wingtip), they aren't businesswear. Country boots are not oxfords.

Traditionalists in the legal profession would tell you that wingtips, too, are unacceptable. As the old saying goes, the gentleman who wears wingtips does not wear shoes, he wears wingtips. They draw notice. On a dark suit, brown shoes/belt/watchband draw notice and this is counter what a law student should be wearing in any situation that matters. From my post on the previous page:

Pufer wrote:You should have shoes.

They should be plain, black, and clean. They should be made out of leather. They should have laces. They should not be sneakers, boots, loafers, slippers, or wing-tips. They should not be bicycle-toed (square-toed).

[...]

Shoes

Black leather with a round-toe, either cap-toed or plain oxford lace-ups. The sole should be as thin as possible, preferably leather. They should be clean. They should be matte – not high polish patent leather.a


To repeat: nothing wrong with those shoes, or that outfit. I have a pair of black wingtips that I tend to wear to work whenever there's a good chance of rain (I'll probably be wearing them for the next three days for that exact reason) because they have a relatively thick rubber sole, I don't care if they get wet, and have the added benefit of being comfy as all hell; and I even have a pair of brown ankle boots that basically look like cowboy boots from the break of the ankle, down, that I'll wear from time to time. This is because I'm doing my 1L summer internship writing briefs deep inside the bowels of a DOJ office where I can't get hired again next summer. The odds of it mattering whether I'm wearing a particularly extravagant tie, brown pants, or my rubber-soled wingtips on any given day are slim. If, however, I was supposed to go out to lunch with a bunch of practitioners or folks from outside of my own office whom I might be able to get a job with for my 2L summer, I'd absolutely revert back to the conservative rules I listed on the previous page.

Clever username wrote:On a more serious note, how often and for what will one need a suit for 1L? I currently have one, but it's black and about six years old. Just curious if I need to update.


I only broke out a suit for interviews and my final oral argument for my appellate advocacy class (it was required for the latter). My classmates who did mock trial stuff needed them rather more often than that.

In short, the minimum would've been once, for a class. The maximum was probably a bit over a couple dozen times for a lot of interviews, class, special events, barrister's ball, and a fair bit of mock trial stuff.

I'd probably update to get something other than a black suit. That said, if the suit is in very good condition, is still well-tailored to your body, and is generally something you wouldn't mind being seen in regularly if the need arises, I don't think sticking with it would be the end of the world. If you do decide to update, you certainly won't need more than one additional suit.

-Pufer

jrs12
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 1:47 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby jrs12 » Fri Jul 03, 2009 1:04 am

Pufer,
I suspect you and I may be eligible for the same discounts at "the brethren." I agree with almost everything you've posted.

Interesting that you say that we should wear sack suits, but we should also wear pleats! Are you, perhaps, using the term "sack suit" a bit loosely to denote any suit that lacks extreme waist suppression in the jacket? In any event, I think that the young and trim can probably get away with wearing something along the lines of the Fitzgerald silhouette at BB, provided the rest of the ensemble is correct (point collar, white pinpoint oxford; conservative tie, AE Park Aves, etc).

User avatar
James Bond
Posts: 2349
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 12:53 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby James Bond » Fri Jul 03, 2009 1:06 am

I still do not get the hating on black suits

User avatar
Mr. Fancy
Posts: 592
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2008 7:22 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Mr. Fancy » Fri Jul 03, 2009 1:18 am

biv0ns wrote:I still do not get the hating on black suits



According to GQ:

The Solid Black Suit

It used to be that a black suit wasn't a safe choice for the office, but these days it's a staple. Just make sure yours is cut on the slim side and fits correctly. (However you feel about your job, you don't want to look like you work in a funeral home.)

User avatar
James Bond
Posts: 2349
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 12:53 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby James Bond » Fri Jul 03, 2009 1:20 am

schrutebeetfarms wrote:
biv0ns wrote:I still do not get the hating on black suits



According to GQ:

The Solid Black Suit

It used to be that a black suit wasn't a safe choice for the office, but these days it's a staple. Just make sure yours is cut on the slim side and fits correctly. (However you feel about your job, you don't want to look like you work in a funeral home.)


Maybe I'm a bit more modern than I give myself credit for

User avatar
Mr. Fancy
Posts: 592
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2008 7:22 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Mr. Fancy » Fri Jul 03, 2009 1:21 am

biv0ns wrote:
schrutebeetfarms wrote:
biv0ns wrote:I still do not get the hating on black suits



According to GQ:

The Solid Black Suit

It used to be that a black suit wasn't a safe choice for the office, but these days it's a staple. Just make sure yours is cut on the slim side and fits correctly. (However you feel about your job, you don't want to look like you work in a funeral home.)


Maybe I'm a bit more modern than I give myself credit for


Not enough guys read GQ. IMO

LawDog3
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:20 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby LawDog3 » Fri Jul 03, 2009 1:30 am

Spor wrote:I want to pick up a new suit or two before heading off to law school. My previous life experiences haven't required me to own a suit, so I'm a bit of a suit noob.

What are the unspoken rules of attire in the legal community? What is appropriate for interviews and other law related events? I've read other places that black is a definite no for any business environment. 2-button or 3-button? Pleats or no pleats? Any suit knowledge is appreciated.

I vaguely remember a thread on TLS about what not to wear to an interview, which is why I'm asking this question.


How about some advice from a former salesman and fashion consultant at Barney's New York?

When interviewing or conducting business, always go for dark suits (especially Black, Navy, Charcoal, or Dark-Brown). Currently the high-point, two-button is hot (the first button hits just below your chest), but three buttons is still ok. Flat-front pant is the only way to go. Macy's caries the new Hugo Line, which is a well-fitting, modern suit that sells for a reasonable price ($700, $450 on sale). Other lines such as Calvin Klein, Sean John or Donald Trump produce reasonably priced suits ($500-$750). If you can afford it, go into Barney's New York or Mario's and buy a Boss or an Armani for anywhere from $1,300-$2,500. The suits will last you forever. Double vented is hot right now.

White shirts or shirts with muted patterns, slim cut is best. Shoes should be modern toe: Either a cap-toe, or split-toe (pointed) shoe. A charlston collar can be worn with any shoe. An English spread (wider than 11 degrees) is more formal and needs a cap-toe shoe. Other spreads can be worn with any shoe. Cole Haan, Boss or Mezlan are great shoes and worth every penny. Splurge on the shoes, your interviewer will notice it. Avoid Kenneth Cole.

Ties should be conservative but modern, not too loud. And be sure that the tie width (as well as the width of the shirt collar) matches or approximates the width of the lapel on the suit. Don't be afraid to pick nice pretty colors, but absolutely eschew bright, bold patterns, cartoons or otherwise playful and/or distractive designs.

When wearing a tie, always wear a tie-up shoe rather than a slip-on.

Always wear a watch, but no earring. Shave completely or closely trim all facial hair, long hair should be slicked and neatly tied into a ponytail or cut above the shoulder.
Last edited by LawDog3 on Fri Jul 03, 2009 1:43 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Mr. Fancy
Posts: 592
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2008 7:22 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Mr. Fancy » Fri Jul 03, 2009 1:33 am

LawDog3 wrote:
Spor wrote:I want to pick up a new suit or two before heading off to law school. My previous life experiences haven't required me to own a suit, so I'm a bit of a suit noob.

What are the unspoken rules of attire in the legal community? What is appropriate for interviews and other law related events? I've read other places that black is a definite no for any business environment. 2-button or 3-button? Pleats or no pleats? Any suit knowledge is appreciated.

I vaguely remember a thread on TLS about what not to wear to an interview, which is why I'm asking this question.


How about some advice from a former salesman and fashion consultant at Barney's New York?

When interviewing or conducting business, always go for dark suits (especially Black, Navy, Charcoal, or Dark-Brown), two buttons or three, flat-front pant is the only way to go. Macy's caries the new Hugo Line, which is a well-fitting, modern suit that sells for a reasonable price ($700, $450 on sale). Other lines such as Calvin Klein, Sean John or Donald Trump produce reasonably priced suits ($500-$750). If you can afford it, go into Barney's New York or Mario's and buy a Boss or an Armani for anywhere from $1,300-$2,500. The suits will last you forever.

White shirts or shirts with muted patterns, slim cut is best. Shoes should be modern toe: Either a cap-toe, or split-toe (pointed) shoe. A charlston collar can be worn with any shoe. An English spread (wider than 11 degrees) is more formal and needs a cap-toe shoe. Other spreads can be worn with any shoe. Cole Haan, Boss or Mezlan are great shoes and worth every penny. Splurge on the shoes, your interviewer will notice it. Avoid Kenneth Cole.

Ties should be conservative but modern, not too loud. And be sure that the tie width (as well as the width of the shirt collar) matches or approximates the width of the lapel on the suit. Don't be afraid to pick nice pretty colors, but absolutely eschew bright, bold patterns, cartoons or otherwise playful and/or distractive designs.

When wearing a tie, always wear a tie-up shoe rather than a slip-on.

Always wear a watch, but no earring. Shave completely or closely trim all facial hair, long hair should be slicked and neatly tied into a ponytail or cut above the shoulder.


Dark-brown? Thats awful advice.

LawDog3
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:20 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby LawDog3 » Fri Jul 03, 2009 1:38 am

schrutebeetfarms wrote:
Dark-brown? Thats awful advice.


Dude, I know fashion better than anyone on this site. Guaranteed. And I specified that Black and Navy were the best choices. Dark Brown (aka "dark chocolate" is acceptable). You are in way over your head trying to talk fashion with me. Black and Blue are conservative. Dark Brown is worn in business frequently now. You obviously do not know the trends. But I will concede that it will depend somewhat on the firm.

This info does not come out of my ass. Back off. I am too good-looking and too well-dressed for any hag on this site to try to tell me how to dress. And, mind you, I get the job nine times out of ten when I interview.

User avatar
James Bond
Posts: 2349
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 12:53 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby James Bond » Fri Jul 03, 2009 1:40 am

LawDog3 wrote: Dude, I know fashion better than anyone on this site. Guaranteed.

Back off. I am too good-looking and too well-dressed for any hag on this site to try to tell me how to dress. And, mind you, I get the job nine times out of ten when I interview.


--ImageRemoved--




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.