During my first year of law school, the career counselor advised female law students to avoid wearing pantsuits to interviews, because senior attorneys were accustomed to courtroom rules often prohibiting pantsuits. As old-fashioned as that sounded, judges have prohibited female attorneys from wearing pantsuits in court as recently as 1999, when a female Seattle Superior Court judge stated that pantsuits were not sufficiently formal for her courtroom and threatened possible sanctions against two female attorneys in violation of her rule. She later recanted her statements after she consulted with other local judges and nearly all of them disagreed with her position.

The Basics

California judges may impose minimum dress codes for attorneys where an attorney’s attire tends to cause disorder or interferes with the functioning of the court. Jensen v. Superior Court of San Diego County, et al. 154 Cal. App. 3d 533, 541 (1984). Other jurisdictions provide similar rules. For example, Alaska permits judges to enunciate a dress code as long as the dress code is not unreasonable and is not based on matters of personal esthetic taste. Friedman v. District Court, 611 P.2d 77 (Alaska 1980). Courtroom dress codes are rarely challenged and what constitutes a reasonable dress code varies depending upon the circumstances. In California, attorneys have a duty to “maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers” under California Business & Professions Code Sections 6068(b) and (f). Failure to properly conduct oneself before the court is punishable by contempt and disciplinary procedures in the form of sanctions or, in extreme cases, suspension. California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1209.

Many courts follow the dress code set forth in the United States Supreme Court Notice to Counsel, which requires attorneys to appear in “conservative business attire, preferably in a dark color keeping with the dignity of the court.” San Bernardino County Superior Court Rule 1900 uses similar language, applying the standard to attorneys, litigants, witnesses and spectators. Los Angeles County Superior Court Rule 8.2 states: “Persons in the courtroom should not dress in an inappropriate manner such as to be distracting to other or usual sensibilities . . . Attorneys and court personnel should be dressed in accordance with current customs as to their business or work attire.”

In the United Kingdom, barristers (the equivalent of litigators in the U.S.) are required to wear robes and wigs in court, eliminating the need to address fashion faux pas during trial. The British House of Lords addressed the matter of traditional courtroom garb in a series of Consultation Papers which noted that the robes and wigs maintain a “sense of solemnity and dignity of the law” and tended to create a sense of “sameness” amidst barristers, so that jurors may focus on the matters at hand rather than the barristers themselves. In the United States, however, courtroom attire can be a strategic tactic in a jury trial. Attorneys sometimes hire jury and image consultants for advice on how to dress and present themselves in court. In one memorable example, Los Angeles County prosecutor Marcia Clark made headlines with her “makeover” during the infamous O.J. Simpson trial to soften her image before the jury and public.

Courtroom attire is an important consideration for attorneys, who must balance self-expression with the need to “maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers.” The next entry will address the legal and Constitutional implications of dress code restrictions in the context of jury trials, bench trials and hearings.