Legally Weird

LEGALLY WEIRD By: Lisa J. Hall

Hodges, Doughty & Carson

CUT HER SOME SLACK, MAN!

I don’t know when it happened, but at some point, I have become one of those lawyers who tell stories about the way it was when I started practicing. I really don’t feel old or seasoned (except when I try to read stupid fine print without stupid reading glasses), but a fair amount of time has passed since I passed the bar and became a lawyer. It does make me feel a bit older when I describe the way things were when I was a brand new associate a.k.a. “baby lawyer:”

• Our firm had one single email address for the entirety of the firm, and some people also used that email address for personal use. And yes, I am pretty sure that it was an AOL email address. • We received telephone messages on small pieces of paper filled out by the receptionist and picked them up from our slots on the front desk when we returned from court or lunch. This was the only way we received messages. We debated getting a “voice mail” system. A bit controversial, but we ended up adopting it. • Women (at least women lawyers) did not wear pants to court. At least that was what

I was universally told – it is possible that a fellow lady lawyer defied these social constructs and covered her legs, in spite of the possible consequences, before my time.

There is no question but that many of the female lawyers who blazed trails for the rest of us had to put up with much more than the requirement of skirts in the courtroom, but this was the particular bee in my particular bonnet back in 1997. Obviously a suit with pants was equally as professional as a suit with a skirt; what was the justification? These were also the days (here I go again) when almost everyone wore pantyhose or tights in skirt or dress situations, and that is a whole other element of annoyance – I shed those (for the most part) years ago and have not looked back.

Locally, the anti-climactic end to this saga is that within a very short period of time after I became a lawyer, it was okay to wear pants to court. I was not the first, and I don’t remember who was (see above regarding “old” and “seasoned”), but I hope she steps forward so she can be celebrated! We can name a holiday in her honor! Or, I will buy her a drink!

I am going to be honest with you. (The only reason I begin this paragraph in this way is to make the point that anyone who begins their confession of candor to me in this way always makes me wonder, “Why do you need to preface whatever you are going to say like this? Are you typically not honest with me? Otherwise, why not just say what you are going to say?”). I usually do not wear pants to court. This is because suits in general are often annoying to me, and I would rather wear a dress, with or without a jacket, and any of these options are suitably (see what I did there?) professional and acceptable. However, the choice is what is important. And, if I can ever turn back time and look like I did when I was in my 20s (see above regarding “old” and “seasoned”), I may again embrace the pantsuit.

Here is what I did not know in 1997: Helen Hulick had already blazed this trail in Los Angeles, almost forty years before that. Hulick was a 28-year-old kindergarten teacher called to testify at trial against two burglary suspects. She was incredibly controversial, though. She wore pants to court. Judge Arthur S. Guerin rescheduled her testimony and ordered her to wear a skirt next time. Hulick told the Los Angeles Times, “You tell the judge I will stand on my rights. If he orders me to change into a dress I won’t do it. I like slacks. They’re comfortable.”

Five days later, she returned to court, in slacks. Judge Guerin admonished her: “Today you come back dressed in pants and openly defying the court and its duties to conduct judicial proceedings in an orderly manner. It’s time a decision was reached on this matter and on the power the court has to maintain what it considers orderly conduct. The court hereby orders and directs you to return tomorrow in accepted dress. If you insist on wearing slacks again you will be prevented from testifying because that would hinder the administration of justice. But be prepared to be punished according to law for contempt of court.” Hulick, commenting on the judge’s rulings to the Times, said “Listen, I’ve worn slacks since I was 15. I don’t own a dress except a formal. If he wants me to appear in a formal gown that’s okay with me. I’ll come back in slacks and if he puts me in jail I hope it will help to free women forever of antislackism.”

Hulick showed up the next day to testify, in pants. She was held in contempt and sentenced to five days in jail, where she was given a prison denim dress to wear. She was released on her own recognizance, and her contempt citation was overturned by the appellate court, freeing her to wear slacks to court.

Hulick returned to court to testify a few months later. She wore a dress.