Top Law Schools

I haven't been able to find information about this elsewhere, so I need your collective help. Basically, it's not a secret that as a woman summer-associate / Biglaw associate, I might want to blow some money on one or two pairs of designer shoes, including maybe a pair for work. Is it totally appropriate / inappropriate to wear designer shoes to a white shoe firm? This is a serious question. Especially if the shoes are easily identifiable, such as Christian Louboutins, which have red soles. Will it make me look like an asshole, like I'm not taking my work seriously, or like I'm flaunting my money even though everyone knows I'm at the bottom of the totem pole?

Also, related--is patent leather OK? They were fine for interviews, so I'm assuming yes, but who knows, maybe someone at the firm could be bothered by it?

absolutely ok.

I can't imagine a woman lawyer without a pair of designer shoes, like this
http://www.barneys.com/Asteroid/0050501 ... Kgodp3WxXA

Yes, it's fine. Just don't go overboard. Well, even if you go overboard, you'll probably be fine. I know some chick who wore those obnoxious Chanel earrings and carried her Chanel bag everywhere over the summer and she got an offer.

Most of the younger female associates at the firm I clerked at and the female SAs were always pretty chic. I don't think it will hurt you at all. I'm a big fan of designer shoes myself. We're going to be well paid lawyers in the future, so why not look the part.

basically if you don't go 'overboard' you'll be ok - this is true for almost everything.

a side note:
I know a chick (class of 2010) who summered at a V50-60. She post loads of pictures of all the social events on FB while she's still with the firm that summer. For whatever reason, she got no-offered and it took her a year after graduation to settle in a small law firm job in the same city.

Corporette addressed that issue a year or two ago. This is the article: http://corporette.com/2011/06/21/are-lo ... he-office/.

The blog is written by a GULC graduate who did BigLaw, so I trust her opinion. The commentators are mostly lawyers, bankers, etc. and I've also found their advice helpful.

Absolutely do not do this. the women in the office will hate you for it. the guys won't notice or care. Its not worth doing.

It's also the wrong industry. If you want to be a fashion maven go into fashion. Maybe do this in PR. Not law.

it depends on how you carry yourself.
it's just your shoes. why would anyone hate you just for a pair of shoes.
people generally could afford them - they just don't buy them.

it's me above.

MrAnon wrote:Absolutely do not do this. the women in the office will hate you for it. the guys won't notice or care. It might not be worth doing.

It's also the wrong industry. If you want to be a fashion maven go into fashion. Maybe do this in PR. Not law.

Fixed.

I disagree with MrAnon. I don't think that it is a red flag or that anyone will hate you for it. If you're really that apprehensive, wait until a few weeks into summer to gauge what others are wearing, but I don't think that it will be a problem. Just don't go over the top or wear anything gaudy.

I probably wouldn't pick Loubs just because of the potential that someone would judge you harshly for it. Nobody is going to judge you or think poorly of you for NOT wearing Loubs but people MIGHT form a negative impression of you if you did. If you want to splurge get something from a designer that is a little less recognizable.

I worked with interns from time to time at my former job (not a law firm but similar environment). I can't speak for other people in the office, but if an intern was rocking a logo-emblazoned bag and owned multiple pairs of Tory Burch flats or similar shoes I judged them a little. Some of them did great work and I'd recommend them to an employer in a heartbeat, but why set yourself up to have to overcome someone's negative first impression?

"I would try not to be judgemental… unless the shoe-wearer started complaining about student loans. Then I’d be judging."

I agree with this.

Read more: --LinkRemoved--

cantabaout wrote:"I would try not to be judgemental… unless the shoe-wearer started complaining about student loans. Then I’d be judging."

I agree with this.

Read more: --LinkRemoved--

This. cantabaout is on the $$$.

Most female associates I worked with when a support staffer at a V10 in NY wore designer shoes. A bunch would go to the Manolo sample sale to stock up.

I have a pair of conservative black sling back Louboutins that I wore to work both at the firm and later when I worked in fashion. Most don't notice the soles, but when they did, it was a bonding activity. ("Ooo; are those loubies??" "I've been thinking of getting a pair; are they comfortable?" "I have the pumps in nude! Don't you just love them?").

Being flashy is always tacky, but low-key Louboutins (pumps as opposed to 6"+ platforms) are not.

ETA: ditto cantabaout

every working professional should have a few expensive items - i prefer designs that are chic yet not flashy.

a girl in my class complained about student loans and how unethical the school was .... yet she seemed to spend a lot on clothes - more than an average law student (who have not worked for many years before law school) does anyway.

Thanks guys (well, girls, probably)! The general consensus seems to be designer shoes = definitely OK if not gaudy. As for Loubs, if they aren't too high (I was only thinking of 85 mm ones, which are 3.5 inch), then they're probably fine too, but I should scope out the workplace to make sure I'm not the only fashion conscious person there.

And on the patent leather?

twelveoaks wrote:Thanks guys (well, girls, probably)! The general consensus seems to be designer shoes = definitely OK if not gaudy. As for Loubs, if they aren't too high (I was only thinking of 85 mm ones, which are 3.5 inch), then they're probably fine too, but I should scope out the workplace to make sure I'm not the only fashion conscious person there.

And on the patent leather?

I'd think nude patent loubs can look classy. A few partners and associates at the firm I worked for before law school wore them, and I often saw female associates wear patent nude loub knock offs and shorter heel versions. Everyone owns at least a set of flat patent shoes, right? Something like this would be nice: --LinkRemoved--{keyword}


Black patent leather is a little too flashy for the day to day office grind. You can wear them to firm formal parties, but if I was a partner or associate, I'd give you some Whitney face:




Different firms have different levels of dress, obviously, so you may be at a causal/ informal firm where loubs may be a bit excessive. However, if it's a business or more conservative type of dress, 3.5 (of a regular leather black show) is completely classy and acceptable. I'd even be comfortable going up to a 4.25. In my opinion, red soles (on a person who doesn't bitch about money) looks professional and classy. If I saw them, it'd DEF. be a conversation starter.

Ugh, the more I think about it, the more I think Loubs = good for somewhere else. Maybe not getting a pair for work is a good thing because then I can be more adventurous about the style. Other designer shoes that are more subtle = definitely OK for work if conservative enough.

You're really overthinking this.

twelveoaks wrote:Ugh, the more I think about it, the more I think Loubs = good for somewhere else. Maybe not getting a pair for work is a good thing because then I can be more adventurous about the style. Other designer shoes that are more subtle = definitely OK for work if conservative enough.

If you have the money, I personally would buy a pair for work this summer. They just start so many conversations with other women, and they look so great. Plus, can anything else make you feel more confident? Put it this way, if we were in the same summer class, I would want to talk to you and get to know you from seeing a pair of red soles flash by--not out of elitism, but just because you and I would share a sense of higher end fashion and we have something in common to talk about.

If money is tight, obvi. they may not be a good idea from a financial perspective.

Fresh Prince wrote:You're really overthinking this.

What don't TLSers overthink? I've seen threads asking about pencil sharpeners on the LSAT and whether a woman should put her hair up or leave it down for a call-back. Nothing surprises anymore.

MrPapagiorgio wrote:

Fresh Prince wrote:You're really overthinking this.

What don't TLSers overthink? I've seen threads asking about pencil sharpeners on the LSAT and whether a woman should put her hair up or leave it down for a call-back. Nothing surprises anymore.

Yep. OP and others in this thread will be shocked when they start working and realize that no one really cares that much. Believe it or not, associates and partners have more important things to do than to obsess over whether you wear patent or matte leather, or Louboutins instead of Kate Spade.

I should preface this by saying im a guy, but I say go for it. Bottom line is that no one will really care since they have more important things to worry about. Guys obviously wont notice and certainly wont care. And it might start up the random conversation with another woman from time to time, which doesn't seem like a bad thing. Its no different than me going out and buying a 2-3K suit if I were rich and wearing it to work. Women wouldn't care or notice and it might lead to a convo with a male coworker from time to time (and even that is unlikely since people just don't have time to worry about this crap).

i think black patent leather can be fine as long as the shoe itself is conservative. i went through interview season with black chunky-heeled patent leather pumps and i did fine. i wouldn't do patent leather stilettos though.

azntwice wrote:i think black patent leather can be fine as long as the shoe itself is conservative. i went through interview season with black chunky-heeled patent leather pumps and i did fine. i wouldn't do patent leather stilettos though.

I'm sorry that just sounds so tacky...chunky-heeled patent leather?