Stupid things that should never be said
March 25, 2006 |
Hopefully this is a case of really bad reporting. The Age reports a Supreme Court justice, Young, as saying:
…“unwelcome” displays of flesh can be unsettling — especially when the offenders are well built.
There has been virtually no problem with male solicitors, who invariably wear jacket, tie and long trousers.
“However, it is clear that some female solicitors have no idea of appropriate court dress. The worst offenders are usually well-built women who expose at least the upper halves of their breasts, and as they lean forward to make a point to a judge sitting at a high level they present a most unwelcome display of bare flesh.
“A judge does not want to embarrass a woman who simply does not know how to behave properly in court … but it would be handy if the senior partners in law firms took precautions to see that members of their team were appropriately dressed for court.”
COME ON! This report is taken from an article in the Australian Law Journal. There is no way a journo would have been poring through that exciting periodical and settling upon this article. There was a tip off and in goes the fourth estate. And why not. It is a commment that sounds archaic and partenalistic.
Any decent counsel or solicitor would know that making yourself an issue with a judge is a guaranteed way of copping a thumping. The Bar rules require wearing appropriate attire. Why have a judge waffle on. It gives those with agendas an easy mark.
