Barrister's attire

Yorky

Having been present in court several times recently I've noticed many barristers wear their gowns off both shoulders, often just above elbow level. At today's sitting the barristers movements were visibly impeded and the gown required regular adjustment by wearing the gown in such a way. I was (mildly) tempted to go and pull it up for him.

Is it some sort of quasi fashion statement?

FreudianSlippers

Yorky wrote: »

Having been present in court several times recently I've noticed many barristers wear their gowns off both shoulders, often just above elbow level. At today's sitting the barristers movements were visibly impeded and the gown required regular adjustment by wearing the gown in such a way. I was (mildly) tempted to go and pull it up for him.

Is it some sort of quasi fashion statement?

It is. It's annoying too IMHO; there is no reason you can't wear it up on your shoulders with one massive exception: summer - mine is the wool one and it's like hell in the summer, particularly in the courts upstairs in the Four Courts.

Pat Mustard

Yorky wrote: »

Is it some sort of quasi fashion statement?

Only the cool kids do it. It's the barristers' equivalent of this:

Claw Hammer

Yorky wrote: »

Having been present in court several times recently I've noticed many barristers wear their gowns off both shoulders, often just above elbow level. At today's sitting the barristers movements were visibly impeded and the gown required regular adjustment by wearing the gown in such a way. I was (mildly) tempted to go and pull it up for him.

Is it some sort of quasi fashion statement?

I was told by a barrister once that all the gowns are the same size at shoulder level and the only size difference is as regards length. Only the men with the widest shoulders can actually wear a gown so that it doesn't slide off the shoulders.
What I find more ridiculous is the femal barristers wearing six inch heels tottering around the courts.

FreudianSlippers

Claw Hammer wrote: »

I was told by a barrister once that all the gowns are the same size at shoulder level and the only size difference is as regards length. Only the men with the widest shoulders can actually wear a gown so that it doesn't slide off the shoulders.
What I find more ridiculous is the femal barristers wearing six inch heels tottering around the courts.

Not so sure about that tbh. I do notice that the cotton gowns are usually the ones that start looking pretty rough fairly quickly (discolouration, rips, etc.) so not sure if this has something to do with it.

I'm the worst for taking off my tabs and switching to a tie; I usually leave my tabs on all day unless I'm not in court, I know that bothers some people

Yorky

The chap was broad shouldered and it took studied effort to maintain it in such a position. Frankly, he looked like a pretentious prat.

Can't understand why the wearer wouldn't want to make it as presentable as possible, marking themselves out after all the study and financial commitment.

Does the judge ever instruct the offending barrister to smarten him/herself up ?

FreudianSlippers

I've seen a few lads get a rap on the knuckles for putting their foot up on the pew, but never for looking like a slob. There are some people who are just plain dirty if I'm honest, they'd be at the top of my list if I were in charge

MarkAnthony

There the whole thing about looking scruffy and how busy you are :rolleyes:

Dandelion6

Claw Hammer wrote: »

What I find more ridiculous is the femal barristers wearing six inch heels tottering around the courts.

Why do you find that ridiculous?

Victor

The Mustard wrote: »

Only the cool kids do it. It's the barristers' equivalent of this:

http://wesleybauman.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/sag.jpg?w=300&h=195

It's for barristers who've been to prison?

The image is slightly ironic. The low slung trousers 'designates' people who have been to prison, where one isn't allowed have a belt and hence the waistline on one's trousers can slip down. In the picture, a belt is being worn.

NUTLEY BOY

None of this carry on ever matched the fashionably tilted wig

FreudianSlippers

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

None of this carry on ever matched the fashionably tilted wig

Ladies/men with fringes/quiffs outside the wig

NUTLEY BOY

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Ladies/men with fringes/quiffs outside the wig

You are right. I must admit that I really thinking of the crumpled Rumpole effect !

nuac

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

You are right. I must admit that I really thinking of the crumpled Rumpole effect !

One of the best and busiest junior counsel of his time was the late John Willie O'Connor of the Western Circuit.

Neither his wig nor gown were in pristine condition, but in modern parlance he was the goto guy on that circuit

pedroeibar1

Yorky wrote: »

........ it took studied effort to maintain it in such a position. Frankly, he looked like a pretentious prat. ..........

That describes many barristers, even outside of Court. You should see what they are like after they've been benched!:)
Like nuac's JW O'C, there was another sartorially inelegant barrister in Dublin, a chainsmoker who often smoked an entire cigarette without removing it from his mouth, invariably seen with white ash stains down his front, which had become gray over time. He also collected swill locally for his pigs, placing it in the back of his three-wheeler Lambretta scootervan. Occasionally did this dressed for court but without wig/gown. A gentleman ; highly regarded locally, and not just because he often did not charge locals.

AnnaStezia

Was this another Horace ? Dalkey ?

Wildlife Actor

The fact that the gown's there at all in the 21st century is silly enough. After that it's only a matter of degree. You may as well wrap it up and wear it as a turban, it's only marginally dafter than having it at all.

234

Love nor Money wrote: »

The fact that the gown's there at all in the 21st century is silly enough. After that it's only a matter of degree. You may as well wrap it up and wear it as a turban, it's only marginally dafter than having it at all.

I guess it's that time of year again: the annual "Gowns are Outdated" thread. On your marks...

Wildlife Actor

234 wrote: »

I guess it's that time of year again: the annual "Gowns are Outdated" thread. On your marks...

Actually, you're right, they're perfectly normal.

johnnyskeleton

Yorky wrote: »

Having been present in court several times recently I've noticed many barristers wear their gowns off both shoulders, often just above elbow level. At today's sitting the barristers movements were visibly impeded and the gown required regular adjustment by wearing the gown in such a way. I was (mildly) tempted to go and pull it up for him.

Is it some sort of quasi fashion statement?

It is in honour of Justitia, the symbol of the courts. She is a statue of a woman blindfolded with scales in one hand, a knife in the other and she is bare chested. The blindfold represents impartiality, the scales balance, the dagger punishment and the bare chestedness is a traditional symbol of honesty in classical art.

By wearing the gown around their waist, the barrister is exposing their chest in a signal to the judge that they are telling the truth at that particular point. As they move onto shakier ground, they tug the gown up to signify that they are about to commence the untrue/legally sketchy part of the submission.

Carawaystick

so the Sun newspaper is going to be that little bit less honest in the future....

gozunda

Yorky wrote: »

Having been present in court several times recently I've noticed many barristers wear their gowns off both shoulders, often just above elbow level. At today's sitting the barristers movements were visibly impeded and the gown required regular adjustment by wearing the gown in such a way. I was (mildly) tempted to go and pull it up for him.

Is it some sort of quasi fashion statement?

I believe its a fashion that's been around for some time ...

FreudianSlippers

Love nor Money wrote: »

The fact that the gown's there at all in the 21st century is silly enough. After that it's only a matter of degree. You may as well wrap it up and wear it as a turban, it's only marginally dafter than having it at all.

I like to call this "gown envy".

hullaballoo

We really ought to update ourselves as professionals. We're supposed to be representatives. We should consult with our clients before trial and mimic their dress. Granted, this may require an element of cross-dressing and quite a lot of unnecessary jewellery but surely it's the only true way to fulfil our representative capacities?

Either that or animal skins, depending on your style.

234

hullaballoo wrote: »

We really ought to update ourselves as professionals. We're supposed to be representatives. We should consult with our clients before trial and mimic their dress. Granted, this may require an element of cross-dressing and quite a lot of unnecessary jewellery but surely it's the only true way to fulfil our representative capacities?

Either that or animal skins, depending on your style.

Matching tracksuits for all. Polyester for the juniors, and silk ones for SCs (have to keep some of the traditions).

hullaballoo

Leaning more towards the animal skins now. This could easily be determined by the Hogwarts sorting hat before being called.

MarkAnthony

Yorky

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

That describes many barristers, even outside of Court. You should see what they are like after they've been benched!:)
Like nuac's JW O'C, there was another sartorially inelegant barrister in Dublin, a chainsmoker who often smoked an entire cigarette without removing it from his mouth, invariably seen with white ash stains down his front, which had become gray over time. He also collected swill locally for his pigs, placing it in the back of his three-wheeler Lambretta scootervan. Occasionally did this dressed for court but without wig/gown. A gentleman ; highly regarded locally, and not just because he often did not charge locals.

This Barrister was different - his sartorial style and personal grooming were flawless and had a healthy athletic build. Possibly quite proficient too as he was representing IBRC. It was just the jaunty gown that gave me the impression of inverted preening vanity.

Wildlife Actor

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I like to call this "gown envy".

Gown fatigue, as a matter of fact.

hullaballoo

Love nor Money wrote: »

Gown fatigue, as a matter of fact.

Fatigues are worn going into battle. As a matter of fact.

Wildlife Actor

hullaballoo wrote: »

Fatigues are worn going into battle. As a matter of fact.

Oh I see, it's not just a job like other people's. It's war. Bit of a soldier fetish going on there.

234

Love nor Money wrote: »

Oh I see, it's not just a job like other people's. It's war. Bit of a soldier fetish going on there.

Yep, that's not the exact opposite of what hullaballoo at all. Not at all...

Wildlife Actor

234 wrote: »

Yep, that's not the exact opposite of what hullaballoo at all. Not at all...

Wat?

pedroeibar1

Yorky wrote: »

This Barrister was different - his sartorial style and personal grooming were flawless and had a healthy athletic build. Possibly quite proficient too as he was representing IBRC. It was just the jaunty gown that gave me the impression of inverted preening vanity.

@ AnnaStezia - yes, Horace.

A jaunty gown indeed! Jaunty angles are an old cinema technique to show a sense of unease or disorientation. Sometimes used to represent madness, disorientation and psychosis (All quite possible in this case as your learned friend was representing IBRC!) Much use is made of the jaunty angle in “The Third Man”, so much so that the crew gave the director a spirit level when filming was over as a hint to use more traditional shooting angles.

Perhaps a roll of Velcro would be an appropriate gift?

One eyed Jack

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It is in honour of Justitia, the symbol of the courts. She is a statue of a woman blindfolded with scales in one hand, a knife in the other and she is bare chested. The blindfold represents impartiality, the scales balance, the dagger punishment and the bare chestedness is a traditional symbol of honesty in classical art.

By wearing the gown around their waist, the barrister is exposing their chest in a signal to the judge that they are telling the truth at that particular point. As they move onto shakier ground, they tug the gown up to signify that they are about to commence the untrue/legally sketchy part of the submission.

Is your gown up or down right now because I actually cannot tell if this may be true or false. It's one of those explanations that are plausible but couldn't possibly be for real!

Uno my Uno.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Is your gown up or down right now because I actually cannot tell if this may be true or false. It's one of those explanations that are plausible but couldn't possibly be for real!

100% true, do normal people not know this?

I think that the older members of the Law Library like to present themselves as being slightly shabby to show that they are simply far too focused on their work to concern themselves with trifles such as personal appearance. Although I can think of one or two extreme examples who either don't know where to draw the line or actually are completely unaware of their appearance.

I have noticed in recent years however that the trend in younger barristers is quite the opposite. Now members of both genders arrive at court looking as though they have stepped directly off the pages of a fashion magazine, primped and preened within an inch of their lives. Of course this means that wearing ones Gown off your shoulders is the only way to let people know that you are way too busy to notice such things and that you are way to cool for school.

Claw Hammer

Dandelion6 wrote: »

Why do you find that ridiculous?

For the same reason I would find it ridiculuos to see an army officer go into battle in his tunic and sam browne.

Claw Hammer

hullaballoo wrote: »

Fatigues are worn going into battle. As a matter of fact.

Fatigues are not worn going into battle as a matter of fact. Combats are worn!

hullaballoo

"Combats" is short for "combat fatigues" as a matter of fact.

Claw Hammer

hullaballoo wrote: »

"Combats" is short for "combat fatigues" as a matter of fact.

No it is not. There are two distinct uniforms. A combat uniform and a fatigue uniform. There is also a No 1 uniform and a dress uniform. Combats and fatigues are not the same thing as a matter of fact.

hullaballoo

Right so.

conorh91

Most passive aggressive thread ever.

Uno my Uno.

conorh91 wrote: »

Most passive aggressive thread ever.

As a matter of Fact.

johnnyskeleton

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Is your gown up or down right now because I actually cannot tell if this may be true or false. It's one of those explanations that are plausible but couldn't possibly be for real!

Would it surprise you to know that i am not, in fact, wearing any tie.



I mean gown.

Wildlife Actor

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Would it surprise you to know that i am not, in fact, wearing any tie.

I mean gown.

Oh don't start me on those amish neckties....

endacl

Love nor Money wrote: »

Oh don't start me on those amish neckties....

Combat Amish neckties? Or fatigued?

:pac:

impr0v

People repeatedly demonstrate that, despite enforced uniformity of dress, they will still seek to communicate their differences.

People repeatedly project their latent inverted preening vanity on to others.

Barristers, like all people, come in all flavours of vanity.

(Some people specialise in generalities.)

Grolschevik

impr0v wrote: »

People repeatedly demonstrate that, despite enforced uniformity of dress, they will still seek to communicate their differences.

People repeatedly project their latent inverted preening vanity on to others.

Barristers, like all people, come in all flavours of vanity.

(Some people specialise in generalities.)

I read that like it was bad modern poetry.

conorh91

impr0v wrote: »

latent inverted preening vanity

That doesn't even compute. People get tired. Their gowns come down. Who cares.

Most legal representatives have far more important things to be worried about, such as the Client's personal liberty and good name, and mundane issues like being audibly heard in Court, to care about how they look from behind. Get up the yard with this 'latent inverted preening vanity' lark.

Perhaps all the people saying court attire doesn't matter should in that case simply ignore others' attire.

Tom Young

If Amal Clooney can do it, well shut up y'all.

Ede & Ravenscroft is what I'm wearing.

MarkAnthony

conorh91 wrote: »

That doesn't even compute. People get tired. Their gowns come down. Who cares.

Most legal representatives have far more important things to be worried about, such as the Client's personal liberty and good name, and mundane issues like being audibly heard in Court, to care about how they look from behind. Get up the yard with this 'latent inverted preening vanity' lark.

Perhaps all the people saying court attire doesn't matter should in that case simply ignore others' attire.

Given that I only ever get to sit at the back now I'm not interning anymore I have to say there are some barristers, generally devils that look pretty fecking good from the back.