3 ms·

Lawyers are held to different standards of professional conduct than defendants. This also makes it much harder to read.

by _bin_ 1y ago

demarq 1y ago
I see what you are saying about there being different standards. I would follow up with, if the shoe was on the other foot, do you believe that a lawyer with tattoos and or purple hair should be allowed to practice? We may never agree? But I think that we should be more tolerant of individuality than prejudice.
- demarq 1y ago
  I change my mind. A tattoo is individuality, a purple dragon on a client document is not an appropriate place to express that.
- Zetaphor 1y ago
  You're comparing a person's appearance to the formatting of a legal document. Nobody is talking about the physical appearance of the attorney. There is procedure and standards in document filing for a reason, this is more difficult to read than a white background.
- _bin_ 1y ago
  I disagree with the way the bar associations are currently constructed as state-sanctioned monopolies. Since they're technically the ones who determine who is "allowed to practice", that's a hard question to answer. I'd be comfortable establishing a stronger dress code for courtrooms - wear business casual or some such - but dyed hair and tattoos aren't easily fixable mistakes if you get called to court, so they have to be permitted for at least the defendant. For attorneys, it's probably fine to say that those with purple hair and tattoos can practice but not appear in a courtroom to represent a client. They can prep and file a patent but not represent you in a trial. That is, of course, if most people would hire an attorney with purple hair and tattoos. I would not do that unless I wanted to somehow get the death penalty for a speeding ticket.
  - int_19h 1y ago
    A friend of mine is a lawyer with numerous tattoos, and it didn't preclude him from successfully representing his clients in court. He's also a USMC veteran. Stereotypes can be funny like that.
  - rascul 1y ago
    I don't like the idea that one should be excluded from doing a type of work because of something arbitrary like hair color or skin markings.
    - rblatz 1y ago
      If you were facing the death penalty would you pick a lawyer with purple hair and face tattoos to defend you?
      - jolux 1y ago
        I would if they were the best lawyer available? Their personal appearance is going to be pretty far down my list of concerns. See also Taleb’s Surgeon Paradox: https://medium.com/incerto/surgeons-should-notlook-like-surgeons-23b0e2cf6d52 https://medium.com/incerto/surgeons-should-notlook-like-surg...
        _bin_ 1y ago
        The point is this might work for a surgeon but does not for an attorney. There are enough jurors who would be strongly biased against anyone arguing before them with purple hair and tattoos that it's exceedingly unlikely anyone with such an appearance ever could rise to the top of his field. This would also be true in e.g. M&A. Even if Cravath's fieriest new partner looked like that I'd hesitate to hire him. Patent law might be an exception, but if I needed to actually go to court, WilmerHale's top guy would still be a liability. Even in a bench trial the judge could see it as disrespectful or look down on my representation because of it. You see my meaning here? On the table, the surgeon's appearance has little or nothing to do with his ability; in court, a lawyer's appearance can be crucial.
- filoleg 1y ago
  > I would follow up with, if the shoe was on the other foot, do you believe that a lawyer with tattoos and or purple hair should be allowed to practice? Yes, they should be allowed to practice, because a lawyer’s tattoos and purple hair do not have anything to do with court documents and readability of those. Exceptions obviously apply, as not all tattoos are created equal, and having a visible gang-affiliation tattoo or a tattoo saying “cop killer” (which actually happened, but to a defendant) might be problematic as a lawyer. Here is an analogy that might help: my employer might not care if someone communicates in offtopic employee chats using gifs and emojis, but I can easily see an employee getting fired for doing the same thing either to an external customer or in cross-org sev 0 incident threads.

Lawyers are held to different standards of professional conduct than defendants. This also makes it much harder to read.

by _bin_ 1y ago

Lawyers are held to different standards of professional conduct than defendants. This also makes it much harder to read.

demarq 1y ago

I see what you are saying about there being different standards. I would follow up with, if the shoe was on the other foot, do you believe that a lawyer with tattoos and or purple hair should be allowed to practice? We may never agree? But I think that we should be more tolerant of individuality than prejudice.

demarq 1y ago
I change my mind. A tattoo is individuality, a purple dragon on a client document is not an appropriate place to express that.
Zetaphor 1y ago
You're comparing a person's appearance to the formatting of a legal document. Nobody is talking about the physical appearance of the attorney. There is procedure and standards in document filing for a reason, this is more difficult to read than a white background.
_bin_ 1y ago
I disagree with the way the bar associations are currently constructed as state-sanctioned monopolies. Since they're technically the ones who determine who is "allowed to practice", that's a hard question to answer. I'd be comfortable establishing a stronger dress code for courtrooms - wear business casual or some such - but dyed hair and tattoos aren't easily fixable mistakes if you get called to court, so they have to be permitted for at least the defendant. For attorneys, it's probably fine to say that those with purple hair and tattoos can practice but not appear in a courtroom to represent a client. They can prep and file a patent but not represent you in a trial. That is, of course, if most people would hire an attorney with purple hair and tattoos. I would not do that unless I wanted to somehow get the death penalty for a speeding ticket.
- int_19h 1y ago
  A friend of mine is a lawyer with numerous tattoos, and it didn't preclude him from successfully representing his clients in court. He's also a USMC veteran. Stereotypes can be funny like that.
- rascul 1y ago
  I don't like the idea that one should be excluded from doing a type of work because of something arbitrary like hair color or skin markings.
  - rblatz 1y ago
    If you were facing the death penalty would you pick a lawyer with purple hair and face tattoos to defend you?
    - jolux 1y ago
      I would if they were the best lawyer available? Their personal appearance is going to be pretty far down my list of concerns. See also Taleb’s Surgeon Paradox: https://medium.com/incerto/surgeons-should-notlook-like-surgeons-23b0e2cf6d52 https://medium.com/incerto/surgeons-should-notlook-like-surg...
      - _bin_ 1y ago
        The point is this might work for a surgeon but does not for an attorney. There are enough jurors who would be strongly biased against anyone arguing before them with purple hair and tattoos that it's exceedingly unlikely anyone with such an appearance ever could rise to the top of his field. This would also be true in e.g. M&A. Even if Cravath's fieriest new partner looked like that I'd hesitate to hire him. Patent law might be an exception, but if I needed to actually go to court, WilmerHale's top guy would still be a liability. Even in a bench trial the judge could see it as disrespectful or look down on my representation because of it. You see my meaning here? On the table, the surgeon's appearance has little or nothing to do with his ability; in court, a lawyer's appearance can be crucial.
filoleg 1y ago
> I would follow up with, if the shoe was on the other foot, do you believe that a lawyer with tattoos and or purple hair should be allowed to practice? Yes, they should be allowed to practice, because a lawyer’s tattoos and purple hair do not have anything to do with court documents and readability of those. Exceptions obviously apply, as not all tattoos are created equal, and having a visible gang-affiliation tattoo or a tattoo saying “cop killer” (which actually happened, but to a defendant) might be problematic as a lawyer. Here is an analogy that might help: my employer might not care if someone communicates in offtopic employee chats using gifs and emojis, but I can easily see an employee getting fired for doing the same thing either to an external customer or in cross-org sev 0 incident threads.