People v. State

As I daily scan through the titles of new blog posts from around the web on my Google Reader, Scott H. Greenfield’s Simple Justice blog is one, indeed presently the only one, which I invariably read every day. Yet, I would be among those he’s presumably referring to when he wrote yesterday: “Some have called me prickly about how I manage the comments on my blog.” We had this exchange earlier yesterday in the comment thread of his post titled Lawyer Fashionista: Dressing Down, on why lawyers should dress formally and conservatively (i.e., for men, suit and tie) when in court:

I wrote:

Well said. I would quibble with the points about the judge’s robe and the high ceilings and furnishings of the courtroom displaying the “majesty” of the law. The quibble is based on analogous perennial criticisms of the Church. The priest’s simple black cassock was meant to be self-effacing, but also had the effect of setting him apart as different from and elevated over other men. The pomp of the bishop’s attire, on the other hand, as well as the lavish gold-gilded furnishings of the church buildings with their high-domed ceilings came in for a different kind of criticism. An aspect of this criticism was the question of whether this was a good use of the Church’s money when so many children of the Church lived in abject poverty.

The idea that the judge’s black robe and the expense of the courtroom’s furnishings reflect our aspirations for the law is, to my mind, outweighed by the reality that these things are designed to confer majesty and honor and the appearance of impartiality upon judges and what they decide in the courtroom regardless of the actual merits of said judges and what they decide. We would be better off if instead of their robes judges wore the same self-effacing uniforms of the lawyers who appear before them, and if the money spent on fancy court buildings and fancy court furnishings was put to better use (or better yet not extorted in the first place).

SHG wrote:

Always the anarchist.  Suffer the tangents and try to focus on the point, a recurrent problem with you.

I wrote:

So comments should focus on the actual holding of your posts, and not the dicta which you think supports your holding and see fit to include in the post? Allow me then to revise my comment thusly: Ditto. What lawyers do and wear should not be about us but about our clients. Duh.

SHG wrote:

Come on John.  We’ve been down this road a few times already.  Don’t make it needlessly painful.  You’re free to go off on any tanget that strikes your fancy.  Just not here.  The comments here are about the post here.  If it strikes you that there’s more to be said going in some other directions, by all means do so.  Just not here.

I wrote:

Okay, let me take a stab at clarifying my earlier comment. You said that the point to the lawyer’s uniform is that it’s part and parcel of the courtroom formality “that reflects what we hope to be the majesty of the law, a belief that there is a place grander than the streets, where higher ideals prevail.” I disagreed with the notion that such a belief and such a hope is a good reason for lawyers to wear their uniforms or for the court to dress itself honorifically. (I assume mere disagreement does not automatically render a comment tangential.) I disagreed with the notion that we should doll-up and artificially elevate what happens in court. We absolutely should seriously strive for and aspire to justice in the courts, but if justice is done it will shine of itself, and if injustice is done no amount of perfumed formality will quench its stink. But the perfume may very well mask some of the smell, particularly with respect to the sensibilities of the easily-awed, and in my opinion that’s not a good thing.

On the other hand, I agree with the practical reason you cite for wearing the uniform: to avoid distractions.

SHG wrote:

That was wonderful comment.  Thoughtful, articulate and right on the money.

Follow