Why I Don't Wear a Tie in Court

Scott Holmes, a Quaker lawyer from Durham, North Carolina, felt led to stop wearing a tie in the courtroom. This is his story of exploring that leading and its implications.

Read this more of Scott’s story in this essay: “Taking off My Tie: The Adventures in Fashion of a Quaker/Lawyer”

More Resources!

Explore the Quaker Way:

Read Friends Journal to see how other Friends describe the substance of Quaker spirituality

Come worship with Friends! Find Quakers near you on QuakerFinder and Friends Journal's meeting listings

Transcript:

I’m Scott Holmes. I’m a member of Durham Friends Meeting. When I describe who I am, I guess it’s parent, spouse, Quaker, lawyer. I don’t know in what order, but I am a trial lawyer and that’s a very peculiar group of people to be. It means in my work, I had to wear a suit, and for many years I had to wear a tie. That always felt uncomfortable in a sense of my yearning to connect with folks. Immediately I was shutting myself off to most of the people in the world.

Not Clear With the Tie

There came a point in my spiritual journey where I had been to North Carolina Yearly Meeting and I had hung out with some old-time Quakers who were doing plain-dress. It planted a seed in my mind that I was not clear with the tie.

The first few days at work I had this kind of nauseous feeling when I put on the tie, like, “this isn’t resting easy with me.” I thought maybe I should start thinking about asking for a clearness committee and talking to people who know more about this and making sure this is really a spiritual thing and not just some kind of a bug or a stubborn, bone-headed idea I’ve got.

So I put the tie on, wore it, but it was kind of heavy, and then the next day it came time to put on the tie and it was kind of heavier. By the third day, I was like, “You know what, I don’t have time for a clearness committee. I’m just not going to put on a tie today, I’ll just experiment with it and see how it goes.”

Leaving the Tie at Home

And it went great! It was awesome. I was in State Court. I was in some lower courts where I’ve been pretty much all my professional life. All the lawyers knew me, all the judges knew me. “Oh, he forgot his tie,” or I don’t know what they thought. But no one asked me any questions. I got a complete free pass, not having a tie in court. I was like, “this is good. This is great! Maybe I can pull this off and nobody will notice! That would be so cool!”

But then I had Federal Court the next day and that judge, he stopped court immediately and called me up and said, “Have you EVER been in Federal Court?”

Encountering Resistance

He took a recess to give me time to think about this and he said, “We’ll see what you really think and we’ll come back on the record here after lunch. We’ll take it up at that time.” And the impression was, “You need to go get a tie on.”

I had another encounter with a judge who made some kind of comment when we were arguing about it that, “Well if you were wearing a dress I wouldn’t let you appear in this court,” and I was like, “Well why not?” And he didn’t understand that. I said, “Well if I’m qualified and I’m licensed, if I’ve done everything I need to do to be a lawyer and my client wants me to, how can you not let me practice in a dress?”

And so what I started learning really quickly was that it wasn’t about simplicity, it was more about equality. That the tie is this symbol of male power and I started learning from my female attorney friends as they were laughing at my experiment—how women attorneys have to think about their dress everyday. There’s no standard costume that they can just put on and not have anyone question them about their appearance in court. Is the dress too low? Is it too high? Is it the right color? Is it this or that? Is it the right place for the right court?

And there’s this second guessing that happens with their dress that is oppressive, which is inherent in being a woman. They have to live up to this standard and the guys have the free pass because the guys make the rules. And so I started really learning more about oppression and what its like to be treated unfairly because of something completely arbitrary because of something like a tie.

For the rest of the transcript, click:

[LorcanOtway]

I am a Quaker in New York City and a lawyer. For years I dressed very starkly plain. Before going into federal court I got a letter from the administrative judge explaining Quaker plain dress to other judges. I would be very interested in speaking with thee on being plain Quaker in court. Writing this by smartphone which is very difficult. I will PM thee later

[zachlosttrail]

Sounds like a lot of people in the comments are missing the point here. Not surprised. Social programming and conformity to play dress-up and act a certain part to please people and perform stupid and outdated customs to curry respect will do that. It isn't about giving the 'finger' to the status quo (how insulting and offensive to the Quaker faith to reduce it to that), it is a spiritual concern to this gentleman. He shouldn't have to find 'another profession' because you don't like his unwillingness to conform to something he doesn't believe in. Actually investigate the background of the Friends and their ideals. 'Costume' is an apropos word here. People are such sheep these days, aligned into their narrow little ideas of what's 'right' and 'wrong' as if a piece of cloth around your neck matters. Friends believe we're all equal, no one is better than anyone else, no one deserves vain servile fawning for their position. False elevation of status is vanity. Superior lording of power over others if they don't kowtow to your demands of behavior is vanity. Kudos to this man for blazing his own trail in this matter.

I wish people would learn to be less afraid of going against the herd. It's 2014. Who's going to arrest you, the Tie Police? Homogenization is a dangerous thing, and leads to the death of individualism and culture. When we become an indistinguishable whole, obeying a set of obsolete rules by rote like trained circus elephants, then we have a serious integrity problem. 

The judge sounds like a condescending, patronizing tyrant who enjoys his patriarchal power. It's a shame there's so many of those in our judicial system, where they should be focused on myriad more crucial matters. Here's hoping more Friends and others stand up to them.

[joffercalifornia]

I spent thirty years as a federal investigator. I was supposed to wear a tie, but it just didn't fit with who I am. I finally just didn't bother wearing a tie, and I found out that very few people even noticed. I'm in California, so that's a lot easier here than it would be in a lot of places - and it helped that my boss was a hundred miles away.

[earthworkr]

That old quote about "the clothes define the man", is totally rediculous. Some of the best people I have ever known, had nothing more than worn out overalls with patches on them, and old worn out work boots, (if they had shoes). So many churches alienate people because of their dress codes, also restaurants, courts, etc etc etc. Its very shallow to judge people or make them feel unwanted or uncomfortable according to the way they cover their body. I can totally see the point hes making. He sought to not elevate himself above anyone by the clothes he had on, so he toned it down. Why do people want to leave hateful comments about him for doing something with good intention?

[jodibeatty]

I love this video. I think of it more often than I would have expected. Thank you for sharing your story!

[LyndOrion]

I think you're great. And its true what you say about women's clothes, there is no standard thing women can wear without it being scrutinized on many occasions, not many unisex things left either.  

[teresafinch]

I am not a man or a Quaker, but I do not see the point of a tie, men have not always worn one, and can look perfectly smart without it. I remember going to see a GP (doctor) and he was not wearing a tie, I felt much more relaxed with him, than the doctor I had before, so it was easier to communicate with him.

[plainegrace]

I have had to go to court for jury duty, and man, it was HARD to not stand for the judge, and to tell them I would affirm, but not swear.  I was raised to be in awe of (okay, scared of) authority figures, and I was really nervous.  But I explained it to the  people at the courtroom, and I was okay.  But I don't have to work there for a living.  There are so many small braveries that make up our lives.

[bernarddrenzcampbell]

I got DUI court but don’t have a suit I have a long sleeve Dress shirt and Dress pants. Do I have to wear a tie?

[orange]

They want you in a tie because they know what the tie represents and what you are freely agreeing to by the act of wearing the tie. Find out what you are binding yourself to legally when you wear a tie, it's a whole lot older and the meaning much much more significant than you would ever believe and if you knew you'd burn every tie you own.

[indivarmadhyan]

I loved this. Thank you. I dislike that I have to put a tie on my daughter for school. It's like a noose of sorts. Also that it's called a tie.... Tied to societal expectation. All love

[plusbonus]

How did the case go ?
Is your client still in gaol ?

[psychshell]

What an interesting way to look at this issue.

[thomaslimon]

I'm a lawyer, and I hold my ties in utter disdain. You, sir, are my hero. I'm not understanding the patriarchy aspect exactly. I think the opposite actually. The tie is a rope that the lawyer tradition has forced us to wrap around our neck as a sign of submission as if "the officer of the court MUST fall in line - or else." Like we can be told to heal or halt, and if we make a mistake our faces will be rubbed in our doo-doo like we are dogs on a leash.

[michaelkingsbury]

An easy solution if you have become tender to hat honor: Just don't wear a hat indoors, unless the furnace is broken and it's freezing inside. I like your testimony, but do you have a problem when they say "all rise, " or by calling the judge "your honor"? Would I stand and doff my hat if the President came into the room? These old customs can still speak. I remember being beat up at recess when I wouldn't pledge the flag, and being kicked out of an Aikido class in college because I wouldn't bow to a photo of the founder of Aikido. I wonder if QEII has gotten used to being addressed by Quakers as Mrs. Mountbatten-Windsor?

[rosskeeling]

It seems to me that the dress code isn't about a judge's power over attorneys; it's a showing of respect for the justice system. That is, we don't wear a tie in court to show submission to the judge, but to show respect for one another. Some people are overly sensitive to status issues, and perhaps forget that judges are public servants. And in a courtroom both the judges and the attorneys are relegated to being servants of mankind. It's probably best not to have a personal contest over who has more status into that environment. That's really not the point of the proceeding, and is definitely not the point of the justice system.

[justachannel]

That ass does not belong on the bench. On the other hand, do you want to prejudice a client by having a judge hold your lack of tie against you and, by extension, the client--whether the judge mentions it or not? And, while I hope not, if I ever need a lawyer again, I will ask _him_ or her to appear in a dress.

[scrapeyhawkins]

Costume was the right choice of words....

[belindahann]

I really enjoyed this video. This guy speaks really well.

[roysmith]

 I have a very mixed reaction. Two things he said brought it into focus. His discussions of women lawyers having to attend carefully to their dress everyday and of his client's reaction to his not wearing the tie. It sounds as if he is a defense attorney. His ethical responsibility is to represent his client effectively. From his description, his decision not to wear the tie threatened his effectiveness. At the very least, it caused a delay in the proceedings (a not insignificant thing given how crowded court dockets are) and focused the judge's attention on how he was dressed, rather than on the merits of his arguments for his client and the facts of the case. He does not appear to grasp the import of what he said about women lawyers, which is that they have to be very careful about how they dress because they know that, in order to be effective, they have to overcompensate because of sexism; they don't really have the option of following spiritual "leadings" that could very well endanger their effectiveness.  I understand why the recognition of the suit and tie uniform as an expression of patriarchy is affirming. But I also think his analysis betrays an unconscious assumption of privilege. He can get away with violating a patriarchal norm and even being "clear" and "comfortable" about it because his being a white, male professional means that the consequences of his protest will likely be mild, at least FOR HIM; they may be much more serious for his client. The consequences of such protests or even for just dressing comfortably for, say, a black teenager, can be huge--witness Missouri. I don't think informing his clients of what he is doing gets him off the ethical hook. Even then, his action is not based on an an analysis of how he can best help his client; it ignores his client's reality; it is not compassionate; I don't think it is ethically justified.