The whole point of a judicial process is to make judgments on the merit of a case not personal prejudice.
What if someone comes to court wearing tattoos are they more guilty?
What if someone comes to court wearing tattoos are they more guilty?
First, the order being reported is made against the lawyer, not against the lawyer's client - And it is in order not to do this in future. So, while your observation is good I think the conclusion you draw from it doesn't follow.
Secondly, one aspect of your good point is that arguments are filed in a very plain format. The point being that the format does not detract from the message. In this case, the format heavily detracts from the message. Have you seen the PDF? It's absolutely nuts. I hope he doesn't turn up to court wearing a dragon mask.
I suspect the client will be billed for the revisions, though.
Beyond that lawyers are governed by state bars and rules of professional conduct — as an example the Florida bar has taken action against an attorney that used to advertise himself as a “pitbull.”
Regarding tattoos courts have rules of decorum, which generally cover appropriate dress/attire in the courtroom. As far as tattoos, I’ve been to thousands of hearings and can give a single anecdote. It was a drug possession case and the defendant was allowed to transfer their case from circuit felony to drug court - basically allowing completion of drug classes while on kind of pretrial probation in exchange for either a nolle pros (dismissal) or withhold of adjudication. The drug court judge gave the defendant a hard time at this initial hearing over having a drug molecule tattooed on their neck - questioning if drug court was a good fit for someone the seemingly was pretty committed to drugs (based on the neck tat). The drug court judge can see a hundred or more defendants a day, they’ve seen it all and aren’t passing judgement, its just that their experience allows them to read people extremely well and they had legitimate concerns because getting in trouble in drug court can result in automatic conviction of the original charge + having to deal with any new charge.
A rule of thumb professionalism and decorum go a long way in court - this attorney could be decent, but as a potential client any lawyer using a gimmicky dragon in a suit in their paperwork should probably raise some red flags for you.
Judicial process historically has a certain seriousness flair and a code of conduct based on it. Making fun of the judge or the court of law is a quick way go get removed from the process or fined, or even jailed. As well as performing marketing stunts like this.
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.
There is procedure and standards in document filing for a reason, this is more difficult to read than a white background.
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.
He's also a USMC veteran. Stereotypes can be funny like that.
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.
Your surgeon paradox says that if someone is successful despite not looking the part, they must be all the better. But are there lawyers with face tattoos or crazy hair that are considered successful in high stakes criminal law in front of juries? For corporate or patent or tax law, that is so much about a deep intimate understanding of hundreds of thousands of pages of ultra specific “loopholes” and optimization strategies, I would not be surprised if there were lawyers who look very alternative. But criminal law lives and dies on persuading people who are not legal experts.
[1] https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/can-an-o...
If you were a brilliant lawyer strongly committed to your craft, you would not get tattoos or dye your hair purple. The reason is simple: too many people would see it and think less of you. As such, it makes you less able to effectively defend your clients. When your job involves appealing to society on behalf of someone, you do not make a middle finger to that same society an immutable part of your appearance unless you are very thoughtless, also not a characteristic I want in a attorney.
There's also the fact that law, more than most disciplines, is premised on adherence to old, old forms of tradition and ritual. In britain they still wear powdered wigs, for goodness' sake. The law still uses Latin terms though it's decades to centuries since educated men learned it in school. Our legal tradition in America is old, with Common Law in some ways tracing back to William the Conqueror. The other major legal tradition on which I've read, Justinian's Codex and its evolution into the Napoleonic Code, dates back to the 500s AD. Discarding old customs, even if you think them outmoded, trampling social niceties because you find them outmoded, is a really bad sign for a capable attorney.
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.
Just tattoo 'cop killer' on your forehead and see if they give you parole.
[1] https://bpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/voices.uchicago.edu/dist/f/305...
That question is for the jury to decide for better and worse. There are lots of good points to a jury trial which is why free societies usually (always?) have them in some form. However one downside is you will once in a while get someone on the jury who judges you not on the facts of the case but on things that shouldn't matter.
Overall it is still better than the alternatives in my opinion, but it does mean you need to figure out what your local cultures are and avoid offending them (note cultures is plural - figure out them all).
It's the same reason why you can't send documents written in yellow font on a blue background - technically not against the rules, but no judge will suffer through reading it.
>>What if someone comes to court wearing tattoos are they more guilty?
Obviously you can just choose not to watermark the document, tattoos cannot be removed that easily. And yes, there are various situations where you'd be asked to cover your tattoo if it was inappropriate for the situation too.
Using those particular color choices might not actually be suffering. It used to be a desirable color combination for word processing. I don't know if judges tend to review pleadings on screen or on paper though. On paper, black on white would be preferred, of course (unless the court had blue legal paper to print on)
And specifying the style of something that they are able to change easily helps that.
Unfortunately, it's true - that's how it will be seen. :(