« TECHNOLOGY VENDOR SATISFACTION SURVEY | Main | RICHARDSON JOINS BLOG NETWORK »
YOUR OPINION PLEASE!
As frequent readers of Law Technology News
know, a key mission of our publication is to champion the members of
our legal technology community — IT leaders, paralegals, lit support
and e-discovery professionals, firm executives, vendors, et al. I am
constantly on my soap box hounding law firm managing partners and
corporate GC to fix gender pay inequity, and preaching the power of
diversity.
For years, LTN's art director Shane DeLeers and I have insisted that when we run
photos of members of our community, that they be in "go-to-court"
professional attire; e.g., jacket and tie for the gents; equivalent for
the gals. We believe that presents them in the most authoritative,
positive light; and helps earn respect from the legal organizations
that (at least historically) have not always recognized their
contributions.
But lately I've been getting some push back from folks I admire —
who tell me that I need to loosen up, because our community does not
wear ties (except for funerals and court appearances) and that by
requiring ties, LTN is not reflecting our community. Sure, I know you
would never get hired if you showed up for a job interview at Google in
a suit. But does it help get you a seat at the decision-making table in your organization?
What do you think? Is it time to stop requiring ties in photos for Law Technology News?
Update: To clarify, I am referring here primarily to photos submitted for President's Corner and our People column, and "controlled" photo shoots; as opposed to "live" photography from events such as LegalTech or ILTA where almost everyone is in business casual.
February 24, 2010 in Diversity, Etc. | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345280a669e201310f35dfdd970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference YOUR OPINION PLEASE!:
Comments
For sure lose the ties, etc. Business Casual is alive and well. Granted, I live in the south - some lawyers in FL wear shorts to the office. The hard part is that jacket and tie is definable...everyone knows what you expect. Business Casual means different things to different people. So, the challenge is to clearly define the new rules, if you "loosen up".
Posted by: Debbie Foster | Feb 24, 2010 7:20:19 PM
Dear Monica,
You have hit on a VIS (very important subject) for this lawyer turned communicator. Just had my own shots taken one set with brown jacket and one with green sweater. And yes, I am going for the brown jacket. BUT for LTN I would advocate it is probably NOT a great idea to have an absolute rule on dress for photo shoots or head shots. I say it depends on the who (subject being photographed some people just look better in business dress) and the what (content of the piece). So drop the rule and have your subjects provide two looks if possible -- a business look and a casual look -- then decide based on the who and the what.
But definitely drop the rule.
Your friend,
Louise
Posted by: louise rosen byer | Feb 24, 2010 7:36:43 PM
Look, I'm not a lawyer. So I'm the wrong guy to ask. BUT, there was that picture of me in the Prius article, and you insisted I wear a suit.
Which was the first time I wore a suit in months, and the first time I wore one in a professional capacity in 5 years.
I feel much more at home wearing cutoff jean shorts, a .38 Special T-shirt, and a pair of Uggs.
LP
Posted by: Larry Port | Feb 24, 2010 9:48:30 PM
Monica,
I think it's interesting that you're asking this question, but I'm not sure the answer makes a huge difference either way. Your readers are going to form their opinions of lawyers, paralegals, consultants, etc. featured in LTN based on the content of the articles they write and what they say when quoted. Using a tie (or pants suit) to judge someone's qualifications is old-fashioned, and I'd like to think that the industry has moved beyond that.
Daniel
Posted by: Daniel Estrada | Feb 24, 2010 10:27:04 PM
Monica,
If the question is "Does wearing more formal attire get you to the decision-making table in your organization?" the answer is "It depends." Your guide should be what the other folks at the decision-making table are wearing. The controlling issue is not what attire makes you most comfortable -- the objective, assuming you want to be accepted by and pereived as a decision-maker in your company, is to have the decision-makers be comfortable with you. And, an easy rule for making others comfortable is to match and mirror them -- their attire, the way the handle themselves, their speech, etc. You're not "giving up who you are" by putting on a tie or wearing something more formal; if doing so simply makes the person or people whom you hope to influence and be accepted by more comfortable in working with you. Being different in this context can be a distraction -- and you don't want others not to hear what you're saying because they are distracted by what you're wearing or not wearing. On the other hand, when you're the boss, you can set the standard for what's accepted attire at the decision-making table.
Cheers.
Posted by: Peter Jenkins | Feb 25, 2010 3:10:29 AM
Why not have two rules: Rule One: If you value being presented in the publication as a professional, then respect the standards set and wear a jacket and tie. If you don't give a s**t (or you're Steve Jobs), dress any way you please.
My new home, Austin, is the Slovenly Capital of the World. People here go to funerals in flip-flops and gimme caps, so I understand that standards have frayed. But I don't have to like it, right? It's my stick and my butt, and I'll keep it there if I please!
I'm struck by how much people pester you to get featured in LTN, and then how little effort they devote to looking their best in the accompanying photo. What's wrong with this picture?
Posted by: Craig Ball | Feb 25, 2010 11:49:45 AM
I preface my comments as follows: I am, by nature, a very casual dresser (the more casual, the better) and I've always been a champion of substance over form. I look at wearing a tie similar to being strung up in a noose, so I avoid it at all costs.
With respect to photos in a professional magazine supporting the legal industry, however, there's a strong argument for staying with the traditional dress code, even for us IT professionals, for all the reasons you offered, Monica. Even though the content of the articles that are published matters more than anything, in a world where first impressions are mostly made on one's appearance, you want to attract legal professionals to read further. Look at business dress as a marketing hack, nothing more.
I recently read that there is a trend afoot wherein business attire is making a comeback. Perhaps the pendulum swung too far and is now making its grand return. In any case, how often is everyone getting their picture taken where posing in a suit becomes so onerous?
Posted by: Tom Ranalli | Feb 25, 2010 11:54:40 AM
Relaxing LTN's suit-and-tie photo policy is a good idea. For the most part, legal technology is not an overly "corporate" industry. I like that LTN wants to uphold the professionalism of our industry, but I think a jacket with a collared shirt for men (without logo-wear) and a nice jacket, sweater or blouse for women would be presentable. It's more reflective of the way our industry actually presents itself.
Posted by: Christy Burke | Feb 25, 2010 11:55:27 AM
Craig, Craig, Craig ..... as tremendous as you look wearing a suit and tie, NOT wearing a tie does not equal unprofessional or even slovenly. Using Austin as a sartorial example is like sending people to Berkley to learn good manners.
The standard is set by the workplace not an editor in New York City. People should dress the way they do in their workplace. They'll be judged the way they always have ...by waht they do not how they look. (Ok, the way they SHOULD should be judged)
Of course on the other hand I'm reminded of the remark by Mark Twain who, when told that clothes don't make the man, replied "of course they do...naked men have very little influence in our society."
Posted by: Tom O'Connor | Feb 25, 2010 11:57:24 AM
I would remove the requirement, but retain the "dress code" as a strong, and explained, suggestion. LTN shouldn't be dictating what people wear if the issue, but at the same time, I agree (and tell my law students) that a professional appearance matters, whether or not it should. (For myself, I often wear ties to be professional, but have a collection of computer-themed ones because, hey, my profession is computer and Internet law!)
Posted by: Jonathan Ezor (@profjonathan on Twitter) | Feb 25, 2010 12:00:24 PM
Monica, I think people should dress however they want to be portrayed - for some, wearing a jacket and tie is the antithesis of their internal culture and inconsistent with their branded public imaging. For others, that formality is an important statement. I think that while there should be some minimum acceptable level of dress for published photos (i.e. at least SOME clothing and preferably no tank tops, or other general tastelessness), that at least business casual should cover it for everyone and not detract from LTN's professional appearance.
Ross
Posted by: Ross Kodner | Feb 25, 2010 12:05:49 PM
I agree with the others that the attire does depend on where one appears. For years, attorneys at Shearman New York and West Coast offices only wear business suits/ties to court or other official events, otherwise making business casual an everyday standard. I, like many others, follow their pattern fully assured that my relationship with my internal clients does not depend on how “official” I look but rather how well my team and I perform for the Firm and our external clients. However, when I visit our European offices, I always wear my best suits and ties as it DOES make a difference there.
I recall that on a several occasions the pictures published by LTN displayed professionals wearing business casual. Granted, some of them were taken during “hot ILTA days”, but were published much later in the year (see “An Undercurrent of Fear”, October 2007 as an example).
So I say, let’s continue with that pattern and “loosen our ties” where it is appropriate…
Posted by: George Rudoy | Feb 25, 2010 12:08:16 PM
Monica sez: Babs asked me to post this for her:
I'm against it and, frankly, people should know better. Some day everyone will need a new job. Do you want a picture of yourself w/out a tie, in a national magazine, when you go looking for a job OR do you want to be able to send someone a pdf of your article or mention in LTN where you're looking your professional best?
Posted by: Babs Deacon via Monica | Feb 25, 2010 12:10:15 PM
George:
You are correct; our feature stories have often included "live" shots during conventions when folks are in more casual business attire.
The question here mostly arises in the context of President's Corner and our People column, or when a photo shoot is planned rather than in news environment, such as Larry Port's referenced portrait for his Green Law article about his Prius.
Posted by: Monica Bay | Feb 25, 2010 12:15:40 PM
M:
Thanks for opening this topic up for discussion. From a perception standpoint, jackets and ties have traditionally conveyed a level of trust to add credibility with an author’s content, especially within law or finance, where readers value expert opinion even more so. However, the landscape is definitely changing, and not just in the legal world. During Jim Lentz’s interview with Digg Dialogue, he was wearing a suit jacket with an open collar as part of his campaign to restore trust to Toyota’s loyal customers (to help with his attempt to have an open and authentic conversation). Arnold Schwarzenegger had a similar approach with his rolled up sleeves during his online video that thanked his Twitter followers for sending him ideas.
While suits and ties are appropriate for wardrobe in court, readers look to LTN for reliable sources from all parts of the legal industry, which includes insight for areas like eDiscovery, litigation support practices or new tools. Modifying the rule to have the dress code be “business casual” will still preserve a professional appearance while providing more flexibility to the different voices and personalities that contribute to LTN. However, certain sections that are specifically designed for c-level executives, such as the President’s Corner, could be kept to a suit and tie.
Posted by: Greg Funaro | Feb 25, 2010 12:20:54 PM
I admit my bias - I grew up in the "dress for success" era and yes, I owned a collection of blue skirts, white blouses and little red crossover ties. Sadly I looked like a Girl Scout who grew up and couldn't leave the uniform behind. As I matured, "aged" is such an unhappy word, I developed my own style which is more dressy with, I hope, a little pizzazz.
That said – I agree that the dress code rule should be dropped. Styles differ by geography and firm. We should allow people to dress to express their own personality. Pulling out the “wedding and wake” suit to meet LTN’s rule (sorry, Mon) is tantamount to false advertising.
Warning: unsolicited advice to follow – Dear future photo models, your appearance is one component of your professional profile. It says as much about you as your degrees, certifications, accomplishments and pro bono efforts. You can choose what you want your photo to say about you – choose wisely.
Posted by: Jo Haraf | Feb 25, 2010 12:26:55 PM
Drop the code. You will end up with lots of suits and ties (or equivalent) anyway. It won't reflect negatively on the publication. The individual can decide how formal or casual to be and I would be surprised if anyone can claim ignorance as to possible outcomes. Someone who dresses casually is sending as much of a statement as someone who is in suit and tie. Considering the many profile thumbnails that you can dig up on people, a photo in LTN is probably just one of many visuals a potential employer or business opportunity is going to see of someone.
Posted by: David Whelan | Feb 25, 2010 12:39:29 PM
I'm conflicted on the rule change: On the one hand, a clear and rigid dress code can act as a great equalizer - no matter the company, position or person featured, it clears the aesthetic palate for the reader and allows him or her to truly focus on the content, since all photo subjects meet a basic standard of appearance.
On the other hand, dress codes can be used to alienate people who may not feel comfortable in attire usually associated with "the establishment."
Our society's emphasis on looks and possessions (suits and ties are possessions, and people are judged based on the perceived value of them), is not ideal, but it's reality.
In the end, I lean toward leaving the stringent requirements in place. The problems with "business casual" and its widely varying interpretations are legion, although I would find it deeply amusing if attorneys began submitting photos of themselves in cutoffs.
Posted by: Sarah Brown | Feb 25, 2010 1:05:04 PM
The trick is not what a person is wearing. The trick is how the writer packages him/herself and what message LTN wants to send. A picture of yourself is not a snapshot while you were at the baseball game nor standing at an exhibit booth. It should be considered part of your marketing package and be as outstanding as your collateral materials, resume, website and other "advertising" tools. A photo by Annie Leibovitz is going to be fantastic no matter what you are wearing.
At SUE Magazine for Women in Litigation, we accept various types of dress. How boring is the typical head shot done by the firm's photographer who shot over 100 people that day at the same desk with the same background using the same colors? Very boring. It says nothing about the person.
We encourage writers and interviewees to submit professionally done, high caliber photos. Our rule is that the photo itself needs to meet our standards in the presentation rather than what the person is wearing. To be in SUE, firms and writers have gone out and had the photos done specifically for the publication. The high standards are good for the writer, good for the magazine and our readers love the variety.
Posted by: Chere Estrin | Feb 25, 2010 1:10:36 PM
For over a century, the Paper of Record (a/k/a the NY Times) had a policy that every person was referred to initially by their full name and thereafter with a required honorific and their last name: Mr. Levy, Ms. Bay, etc. Eventually they relaxed it for sports news but nowhere else.
Then they reviewed a concert by a large gentleman famous for songs like "Paradise by the Dashboard Light." Throughout the review, they referred to him as Mr. Loaf.
Thanks to Meat Loaf, the Times eventually relaxed the policy.
Just sayin.... Do what makes sense for the person and the situation. I think leaving it up to the subject is a pretty good idea -- "It's a formal portrait, but you choose the degree of formality with which you wish to appear within it."
Posted by: Steven Levy | Feb 25, 2010 2:12:25 PM
I personally like the dress up code. You only have one opportunity to make a first impression and oftentimes you are taken more seriously if you are dressed as if going on a job interview or to court. Having your picture appear in this magazine is a privledge and if it means getting dressed up, then I am happy to do so.
The other thing that bears mentioning is that not everyone has the same impecable judgement and by setting a baseline of what is acceptable and what is not, you level the playing field.
Posted by: Donna Payne | Feb 25, 2010 3:54:58 PM
Within the technology community, more casual clothing is the norm, of course. As I think about photos that appear in publications like Information Week, there seems to be a mix of casual and not-so-casual attire.
I still think that the more formal outfit does convey an impression of seriousness and expertise that is deeply ingrained in all of us, no matter how much we protest to the contrary. So, on balance, I think it would be wise for someone who is appearing in LTN to look as good as possible (and that includes dressing nicely), but if someone does not want to wear something that they feel would convey a false impression of who they are, then they should be allowed to wear what they want.
Posted by: Ted Banks | Feb 25, 2010 5:50:55 PM
I would suggest changing "insisted" to "strongly recommended" with the tie being optional. A coat always dresses up a nice shirt. Even if you don't wear one to work every day [or any day for some] it seems like you'd want to clean up for your mug in a magazine -- especially for LTN. If not for yourself, do it for the organization you're representing. They'll appreciate your effort.
Posted by: David Bowerman | Feb 25, 2010 8:30:56 PM
Whatever you do, just don't make me wear a tie when I'm writing my "Web Watch" column.
Posted by: Bob Ambrogi | Feb 25, 2010 10:35:41 PM
Maybe that's part of the problem...people are too lackadaisical about their appearance. I think having the tie looks professional. I'd say leave it. On the other hand, it depends whether you want to follow your own mind and be professional or follow the crowd and be business casual, which is oddly becoming more casual than business. Don't believe me? Just take a look at the guy in our company who comes to work in flip flops.
Posted by: Tay | Mar 1, 2010 10:10:26 AM
When I began practicing, we even wore coats and ties to work on Saturdays! Times have changed.
When at Legal Tech this year, I had a meeting at the University Club. Since I had worn a suit and tie all day, I switched to a sweater. The Praetorian Guard at the club denied my admission. Oh the humiliation.
I think it time to abandon the policy.
-- Browning Marean
Posted by: Browning Marean via MB | Mar 1, 2010 10:32:52 AM
In college I had a professor that required all students to dress professionally in class. For men this meant coat and tie, and for women, it meant skirt/pants and a "non-revealing" blouse. The professor insisted that his class was an "introduction" to the profession, and that we should always be dressed accordingly.
More than 2 decades later, I still prefer a suit and tie when making a professional introduction. However, I don't believe this dress code should be forced upon others.
The policy should encourage professional attire, but not require it. Of course, the editor always has the right to enforce it's "no shoes, no no shirt, no service" policy at any time.
Posted by: Cecil Lynn | Mar 2, 2010 10:14:08 AM
Walter Eckland, the character played by Cary Grant in 1965's "Father Goose," said he stopped being a professor because the administration gave him a hard time about showing up to class one day without a tie. "You would think they would be more interested in what was in a man's head than what was around his neck."
Personally, I don't think anyone looks comfortable in a suit. I am, I suppose, in the wrong business, because I hate ties and do not wear one any longer than I absolutely have to. Don't get me started on the $50 tie I had to buy because I forgot mine one day.
Clothes do make the man. what we wear says a lot about who we are or at least how we perceive ourselves. For 99% of the people who read an article, the picture and the content are all they will ever know about the author. Let the author pose in whatever attire he feels best represents himself to the world.
Of course, no spandex. No leather and chains (we aren't tax collectors). No "Eat at Joe's" t-shirts. "I deny your reality and substitute my own" t-shirts OK. Underwear on the inside.
Posted by: John Waid | Mar 4, 2010 11:06:17 AM
And if you are wearing an earring, you had better be either a girl or a pirate. If the latter, display parrot and eye patch.
Posted by: John Waid | Mar 4, 2010 12:46:04 PM
Clothing is the key to fashion so having a few items is necessary to always looking good. Things that will always be in style and that you can mix and match include a few knit shirts and a couple good blouses.
Posted by: Formal Attire Ladies | Aug 15, 2010 9:33:04 PM
Every woman should have a couple dress skirts and at least one good dress that can be word for business or casual. Businesses as well should have the right bankruptcy attorney.
Posted by: Bankruptcy attorney | Aug 15, 2010 10:02:09 PM
Subscribe to this blog's feed
Follow me on Twitter
