You have4 free articles left this month.
Register for a free account to access unlimited free content.
You have 4 free articles left this month.
Register for a free account to access unlimited free content.

Lawyers Weekly - legal news for Australian lawyers

Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
lawyers weekly logo

Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA

Goodbye job applications, hello dream career
Seize control of your career and design the future you deserve with LW career

Do lawyers think ties are still needed in court?

Following a determination last week that open-collared shirts do not constitute a “state of undress” in the House of Representatives, Lawyers Weekly asked readers whether forgoing a tie in court should be permissible.

user iconJerome Doraisamy 08 August 2022 The Bar
Do lawyers think ties are still needed in court?
expand image

Last week, newly elected Greens MP Max Chandler-Mather was interrupted in parliamentary question time, whilst asking Prime Minister Anthony Albanese about the nation’s housing crisis, by Nationals MP Pat Conaghan to make a point of order.

Mr Conaghan’s point of order pertained to Mr Chander-Mather’s “state of undress” — that is, the Greens MP was not wearing a tie in Parliament, which the Nationals MP argued was a violation of the rules of the House of Representatives.  

Discretion over dress code lies with the Speaker of the House in Federal Parliament, and Speaker Milton Dick MP dismissed the interjection.

In a statement issued, as reported by SBS, Mr Conaghan said: “This is not a barbecue. This is question time in the Australian Parliament. What next, board shorts and thongs? Maybe a onesie in winter.

“Some may say that it’s a minor matter to not comply with the dress standard, but what it says to many, including me, is that there is little respect for the tradition and history of our Parliament.” 

Mr Chandler-Mather, for his part, told Nine that it was “completely bizarre” that he should be expected to “dress up like a businessman” in a place that is supposed to represent all Australians.

What do lawyers think?

Following this affair, Lawyers Weekly asked its audience, via a LinkedIn poll, if ties should still be worn by practitioners/advocates when in courtroom proceedings. The question was prompted not just in light of the idea that open collars are good enough for our parliamentarians, but also against the backdrop of ties becoming less common in legal offices.

At the time of closing, the poll results were as follows:

The poll conducted was, of course, not a scientific study. But it offers an interesting snapshot of lawyers’ prima facie views as to the required dress code when in court, or even more generally, as practitioners.  

Maddocks senior associate Justin McGovern submitted that “lawyers are officers of the court, and ought to show respect for the institution accordingly”.

“Lack of respect by our parliamentarians should not form the basis for similar disrespect amongst the profession,” he opined.

“Ultimately, I consider it to be a matter of dutiful respect for the court as the institution responsible for administering justice in our society,” Mr McGovern told Lawyers Weekly.

IP Australia hearings officer Blake Knowles, who noted that while he does not work in the courts, said that while ties are a “ridiculous and impractical anachronism, they have some value in that they do embody a certain level of pride in your appearance and respect for the person you are meeting or the audience you are speaking to”.

“I couldn’t care less if someone wears a tie or not, but I generally wear ties unless I know someone well,” he said.

There were, however, legal professionals who do see value in removing the tie from such proceedings. Hall & Wilcox lawyer Aron Mazur said he was surprised to view the votes coming in, reflecting that “I guess we’re not quite there yet in terms of progressiveness!”

“I think it is about time we ditch the tie — a pointless relic of a time that has well and truly passed,” he suggested to Lawyers Weekly.

“Many law firms (like Hall & Wilcox) have ditched suits and ties long ago, and I think the courts should follow.”

“Maybe one step at a time though — ties before suits,” he joked.

Civil litigation and appeals lawyer Joel Payne noted that he would continue wearing a tie even if it wasn’t required of him, but added that he feels such formalities may only remain in place for a limited time.

“I like wearing a tie because a suit and tie is the most formal thing I have to wear. I would keep wearing a tie in court if it wasn’t mandatory,” he mused.

But, Mr Payne added, he doesn’t think it should be mandatory.

“Gendered dress codes are just ticking time bombs,” he said.

Jerome Doraisamy

Jerome Doraisamy

Jerome Doraisamy is the managing editor of Lawyers Weekly and HR Leader. He is also the author of The Wellness Doctrines book series, an admitted solicitor in New South Wales, and a board director of the Minds Count Foundation.

You can email Jerome at: jerome.doraisamy@momentummedia.com.au 

Comments (4)
  • Avatar
    Paul wrote:
    There is a significant diffierence between not wearing a tie to the office, and not wearing a tie to court. Courts are still a highly respected institution, and should be afforded the same level of respect.

    So the majority of female legal professionals are not respecting the Court?
    0
  • Avatar
    Given that the law still requires we wear outfits from four centuries ago, I doubt this is a change we will be quick to adopt.
    1
  • Avatar
    There is a significant difference between not wearing a tie to the office, and not wearing a tie to court. Courts are still a highly respected institution, and should be afforded the same level of respect.
    1
  • Avatar
    I’m reminded of an old police joke,
    Q: “What do you call a man in a three piece suit?”
    A: “The defendant.”
    If lawyers no longer have to dress for court, the only well dressed people on the floor of the court are likely to be defendants.
    0
Avatar
Attach images by dragging & dropping or by selecting them.
The maximum file size for uploads is MB. Only files are allowed.
 
The maximum number of 3 allowed files to upload has been reached. If you want to upload more files you have to delete one of the existing uploaded files first.
The maximum number of 3 allowed files to upload has been reached. If you want to upload more files you have to delete one of the existing uploaded files first.
Posting as
You need to be a member to post comments. Become a member for free today!