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
zettsscores40
Posts: 2118
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 5:49 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby zettsscores40 » Sun Aug 08, 2010 12:35 am

No one was talking about not being able to wear pinstripes. It was w/r/t buttondown collars. Perhaps Hooked on Phonics would be a good investment along with that suit.

User avatar
vamedic03
Posts: 1579
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:50 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby vamedic03 » Sun Aug 08, 2010 12:37 am

zettsscores40 wrote:No one was talking about not being able to wear pinstripes. It was w/r/t buttondown collars. Perhaps Hooked on Phonics would be a good investment along with that suit.


Oh sorry, I guess if you're a senior associate, have a great book of business, then you'll fail to make partner because of buttondown collars. Please, get real.

User avatar
Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 385
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:32 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Thomas Jefferson » Sun Aug 08, 2010 12:45 am

Just spent a decent amount of time in courtrooms this past week for this volunteering thing I was doing, and I noticed that many of the judges kept a business casual dress code with their clerks (mostly khakis/slacks with a polo or the female equivalent thereof). The judges wore a shirt and tie under their robes, but, perhaps surprisingly based on this thread, one or two (I saw four different judges over the week IIRC) had a button-down-collar themselves. It was a state district court. This seemed somewhat less formal than I was expecting. The lawyers were all suit and tie, however.

Was the courthouse less formal than most or was my expectation off?
Last edited by Thomas Jefferson on Sun Aug 08, 2010 12:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
zettsscores40
Posts: 2118
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 5:49 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby zettsscores40 » Sun Aug 08, 2010 12:46 am

No, but it still looks like shit. It's a casual collar. If you even think about wearing a BD or a pinstriped suit to an interview you deserve to be slapped around for a while.

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby jrs12 » Sun Aug 08, 2010 1:03 am

zettsscores40 wrote:No, but it still looks like shit. It's a casual collar. If you even think about wearing a BD or a pinstriped suit to an interview you deserve to be slapped around for a while.


What's the relationship between "looks like shit" and "it's a casual collar"?

If you're arguing about aesthetics, then you're wasting your time. It's not really something about which one can argue.

If you're arguing about propriety in the United States, then you're simply wrong. You are, of course, free to retain your anglophilic proclivities, but please refrain from projecting them.

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Pufer » Sun Aug 08, 2010 3:20 am

vamedic03 wrote:
zettsscores40 wrote:No one was talking about not being able to wear pinstripes. It was w/r/t buttondown collars. Perhaps Hooked on Phonics would be a good investment along with that suit.


Oh sorry, I guess if you're a senior associate, have a great book of business, then you'll fail to make partner because of buttondown collars. Please, get real.


Back in the mid-90s, Chief Justice Rehnquist became so incensed during the argument of counsel for the United States that he didn't pay attention to a single argument made, and called an emergency meeting of the Justices as soon as argument was concluded to discuss the attire of the attorney.

The attorney's mistake? She wore a conservative, chocolate brown skirt suit before the Supreme Court. This abominable move resulted in the Chief Justice having sent a letter to the Solicitor General admonishing the attorney for her incredibly poor judgment.

Did Rehnquist wildly overreact to something that nobody else even noticed? No doubt.

Is there a "hard set rule" saying that chocolate brown suits are prohibited in court? Of course not.

Should the attorney from the Solicitor General's office have realized that you don't wear chocolate brown suits to court? Absolutely.

It is undeniable that button-down collars are a deviation from the universally accepted norms of professional dress (note the use of the term "universally accepted"). They may well be acceptable in most situations, with most crowds, but that is irrelevant. What you have to be worried about is Rehnquist (who, himself, wore chocolate brown suits, button-down collars, and even cravats from time to time - when you're at the top you can do whatever you want). If a female lawyer made it a point of wearing a chocolate brown suit to a law office where Rehnquist was a partner, do you seriously think that he would give a shit about how big her book is when it came time to vote for that associate to become partner? Do you think he would think twice about sending a brand new associate home to change?

-Pufer

User avatar
Corsair
Posts: 3997
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 1981 12:25 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Corsair » Sun Aug 08, 2010 3:24 am

..

User avatar
Waterman47
Posts: 176
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:44 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Waterman47 » Sun Aug 08, 2010 3:38 am

I don't care how long those wide pinstripes have been made, they look horrible. You don't play for the Yankees.

And I agree that button-down collars don't look as good with suits as regular collars. But if you really want to wear one, who cares? You're not gonna get shot or disbarred for it. No point in arguing.

nontradintexas
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:01 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby nontradintexas » Sun Aug 08, 2010 8:14 am

After 21 pages of debating whether a button-down should be worn or not, can't we all just STFU? No one is going to suddenly see the light and change their opinion. If the people who want to wear a button-down wear one at the office, the non-button-down people can look down on them.

Ultimately, none of us has written a generally accepted book on men's style, so we're all just giving opinions. The topic is played out.

User avatar
Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 385
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:32 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Thomas Jefferson » Sun Aug 08, 2010 3:30 pm

nontradintexas wrote:After 21 pages of debating whether a button-down should be worn or not, can't we all just STFU? No one is going to suddenly see the light and change their opinion. If the people who want to wear a button-down wear one at the office, the non-button-down people can look down on them.

Ultimately, none of us has written a generally accepted book on men's style, so we're all just giving opinions. The topic is played out.


Bye now.

User avatar
wiseowl
Posts: 1071
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 4:38 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby wiseowl » Sun Aug 08, 2010 3:58 pm

Thomas Jefferson wrote:
nontradintexas wrote:After 21 pages of debating whether a button-down should be worn or not, can't we all just STFU? No one is going to suddenly see the light and change their opinion. If the people who want to wear a button-down wear one at the office, the non-button-down people can look down on them.

Ultimately, none of us has written a generally accepted book on men's style, so we're all just giving opinions. The topic is played out.


Bye now.


Actually, his was the best post in a long time on this thread. I used to read it every so often for good info and recent trends, but it's become a circle of peacocks clucking at each other.

Summary: for an interview, wear a charcoal or navy suit, with third choice a navy pinstripe. Wear either a white or light blue shirt. Wear either a red or blue tie, with third choice yellow. With few exceptions, wear a black belt and black shoes.

For the office: wear whatever the hell you please. Every person has a different build, complexion, and geographic location that will dictate what is appropriate far more than a bunch of 23 year olds opining bitching in an internet thread.

User avatar
leobowski
Posts: 511
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 2:11 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby leobowski » Sun Aug 08, 2010 4:15 pm

I'm thinking about adding leather elbow patches to a couple of my sportcoats (corduroy and tweed). Is that legit or too old-professorish?

User avatar
Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 385
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:32 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Thomas Jefferson » Sun Aug 08, 2010 4:44 pm

leobowski wrote:I'm thinking about adding leather elbow patches to a couple of my sportcoats (corduroy and tweed). Is that legit or too old-professorish?


When would you be wearing them?

User avatar
vamedic03
Posts: 1579
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:50 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby vamedic03 » Sun Aug 08, 2010 5:22 pm

wiseowl wrote:
Thomas Jefferson wrote:
nontradintexas wrote:After 21 pages of debating whether a button-down should be worn or not, can't we all just STFU? No one is going to suddenly see the light and change their opinion. If the people who want to wear a button-down wear one at the office, the non-button-down people can look down on them.

Ultimately, none of us has written a generally accepted book on men's style, so we're all just giving opinions. The topic is played out.


Bye now.


Actually, his was the best post in a long time on this thread. I used to read it every so often for good info and recent trends, but it's become a circle of peacocks clucking at each other.

Summary: for an interview, wear a charcoal or navy suit, with third choice a navy pinstripe. Wear either a white or light blue shirt. Wear either a red or blue tie, with third choice yellow. With few exceptions, wear a black belt and black shoes.

For the office: wear whatever the hell you please. Every person has a different build, complexion, and geographic location that will dictate what is appropriate far more than a bunch of 23 year olds opining bitching in an internet thread.


but, they'll call you a dweeb...

User avatar
leobowski
Posts: 511
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 2:11 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby leobowski » Sun Aug 08, 2010 6:30 pm

Thomas Jefferson wrote:
leobowski wrote:I'm thinking about adding leather elbow patches to a couple of my sportcoats (corduroy and tweed). Is that legit or too old-professorish?


When would you be wearing them?



Generally at social events and at occasionally at work (federal public defender's office, pretty lax dress).

User avatar
Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 385
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:32 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Thomas Jefferson » Sun Aug 08, 2010 6:40 pm

leobowski wrote:
Thomas Jefferson wrote:
leobowski wrote:I'm thinking about adding leather elbow patches to a couple of my sportcoats (corduroy and tweed). Is that legit or too old-professorish?


When would you be wearing them?



Generally at social events and at occasionally at work (federal public defender's office, pretty lax dress).


At social events I think you'd be more than alright with them, and I don't think they'd be a problem for the occasional Friday at work given what you said about where you work. I don't have a problem with the old professor look (bow ties to frat outings in UG ftmfw) and others can speak better to the work-appropriateness than I can, however.

User avatar
leobowski
Posts: 511
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 2:11 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby leobowski » Sun Aug 08, 2010 6:46 pm

Cool thanks! I've also been experimenting with shirt-stays, you don't really see them much outside of military dress but they are pretty sweet. I don't have to re-tuck my shirt halfway through the day.

I also saw someone in court rocking a tie chain the other day, that was pretty sweet.

User avatar
HenryKillinger
Posts: 248
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 4:56 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby HenryKillinger » Sun Aug 08, 2010 7:20 pm

leobowski wrote:Cool thanks! I've also been experimenting with shirt-stays, you don't really see them much outside of military dress but they are pretty sweet. I don't have to re-tuck my shirt halfway through the day.

I also saw someone in court rocking a tie chain the other day, that was pretty sweet.

please do not 'rock' the tie chain. Its sickeningly ostentatious. Tie bar at the absolute most.

User avatar
leobowski
Posts: 511
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 2:11 am

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby leobowski » Sun Aug 08, 2010 8:46 pm

HenryKillinger wrote:
leobowski wrote:Cool thanks! I've also been experimenting with shirt-stays, you don't really see them much outside of military dress but they are pretty sweet. I don't have to re-tuck my shirt halfway through the day.

I also saw someone in court rocking a tie chain the other day, that was pretty sweet.

please do not 'rock' the tie chain. Its sickeningly ostentatious. Tie bar at the absolute most.



Oh I would never rock one but some older guys can pull it off. A simple tie bar on the other hand, is completely legit.

PirateCap'n
Posts: 747
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 5:44 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby PirateCap'n » Sun Aug 08, 2010 9:02 pm

wiseowl wrote:
Thomas Jefferson wrote:
nontradintexas wrote:After 21 pages of debating whether a button-down should be worn or not, can't we all just STFU? No one is going to suddenly see the light and change their opinion. If the people who want to wear a button-down wear one at the office, the non-button-down people can look down on them.

Ultimately, none of us has written a generally accepted book on men's style, so we're all just giving opinions. The topic is played out.


Bye now.


Actually, his was the best post in a long time on this thread. I used to read it every so often for good info and recent trends, but it's become a circle of peacocks clucking at each other.

Summary: for an interview, wear a charcoal or navy suit, with third choice a navy pinstripe. Wear either a white or light blue shirt. Wear either a red or blue tie, with third choice yellow. With few exceptions, wear a black belt and black shoes.

For the office: wear whatever the hell you please. Every person has a different build, complexion, and geographic location that will dictate what is appropriate far more than a bunch of 23 year olds opining bitching in an internet thread.


How about a charcoal suit with fairly subtle pinstripes for an interview (like this: --ImageRemoved--? Also, for the red/blue ties, should they be solid or is it ok to have stripes that match the suit (e.g. red tie, navy blue stripes -- sort of like the one posted)? --ImageRemoved--

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby romothesavior » Sun Aug 08, 2010 9:33 pm

wiseowl wrote:
Actually, his was the best post in a long time on this thread. I used to read it every so often for good info and recent trends, but it's become a circle of peacocks clucking at each other.

Summary: for an interview, wear a charcoal or navy suit, with third choice a navy pinstripe. Wear either a white or light blue shirt. Wear either a red or blue tie, with third choice yellow. With few exceptions, wear a black belt and black shoes.

For the office: wear whatever the hell you please. Every person has a different build, complexion, and geographic location that will dictate what is appropriate far more than a bunch of 23 year olds opining bitching in an internet thread.



This is so credited.

And if anyone I worked with made fun of me and said things at restaurants like, "Does he meet the dress code?" because I was wearing a BD, I would probably punch that person in the nose. Unless they were my boss. In which case, I doubt anyone that childish and silly would make partner anyways. What a ridiculous argument.

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Pufer » Sun Aug 08, 2010 10:09 pm

PirateCap'n wrote:How about a charcoal suit with fairly subtle pinstripes for an interview (like this: --ImageRemoved--? Also, for the red/blue ties, should they be solid or is it ok to have stripes that match the suit (e.g. red tie, navy blue stripes -- sort of like the one posted)? --ImageRemoved--


GodSpeed wrote:Everything deviating from the traditional uniform(Navy/dark charcoal, solid suit, red power tie, white shirt, black shoes, black belt), at best, will do nothing for you and at worst will cost you the job.


Only thing I'd change is to add "or blue" after the word red.

-Pufer

User avatar
GodSpeed
Posts: 245
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 12:05 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby GodSpeed » Sun Aug 08, 2010 10:17 pm

black power tie?

Image


















okay, i know. that was terrible :oops:

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

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby Pufer » Sun Aug 08, 2010 11:28 pm

I actually have one of those, only in a more subtle power-symbol print.

Image

Never have had occasion to wear it, however (of course, that's true of most of my 800+ ties).

-Pufer

User avatar
GodSpeed
Posts: 245
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 12:05 pm

Re: Suits (Clothing, not law)

Postby GodSpeed » Sun Aug 08, 2010 11:30 pm

800 ties? Christ.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.