It IS What You Wear

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I urge everyone who is reading this to rush out and get the March 2012 edition of Allure magazine (No, I do not own stock in Conde Nast publications and am not receiving renumeration for this plug).  Once you own it, turn to page 150.  There is an article by Judy Bachrach, who may just become our new best friend here in the Trenches.  The article is entitled "Closing Arguments," and it is about how what you wear to court has an effect on the results you receive.  Fact finders, consciously or not, use the visual cues in front of them to shape their decisions.  Sometimes the cues are even olfactory, which is why I tell clients who smoke to have their clothes professionally cleaned before they come to court and not to smoke in them (stale cigarette smoke gives precisely the wrong impression no matter what you are asking from the court).   Most clients listen to our advice; the ones who don't, do so at their peril.  What our clients need to understand is that we here in the Trenches create a theory of the case, a story to relay to the judge.  Everything we do furthers that theory, every motion we file, every letter we send.  The way our client appears to the court can either help that theory or sink it lower than Davey Jones' locker because it disconnects with what we're telling the court.  Is it dishonest to counsel clients to change their style?  I don't think so, any more than it's dishonest to counsel people on what is appropriate to wear to church, to a job interview, to a speaking engagement, or to a first meeting with potential in-laws.  The point is that appearance is a powerful medium by which people relay non-verbal information.  What we're doing here in the Trenches is ensuring all of our clients' messages are congruent.  Clients can either help us and themselves by dressing in a way that furthers their cause, or make our jobs more difficult.  Which do you think we prefer?