Dressing down Thursday
We will continue the series about Judge J, but before we do there are some more topical issues which arise.
Some people have the knack of always almost instinctively knowing what is the right outfit to wear for any occasion. Sadly I have never been one of these people.
When I first went to Cambridge we had two distinct events at Trinity College which new law students from the college were invited to. On the first occasion, as a first generation university student, I was keen to show that someone emanating from Salford was by no means scruffy. I put my best suit on (by which I mean my only suit, which I had acquired at a knockdown price in very favourable circumstances, namely that someone with my exact build and in particular very broad across the shoulders for my height, had not gone through with the purchase of a made-to-measure suit which was thus being sold cheaply on the basis that it would not fit many people but fitted me as if made-to-measure, and was a pretty good suit) and went along to the event. Everyone else was wearing jeans. I learned my lesson. The next time we had a function, I went along in a casual top and jeans. Perhaps I had not read the details posted on the college notice board with sufficient care (a bad start for a would-be lawyer) because given that a High Court judge was attending everyone else wore a suit.
After this relatively unpromising sartorial start to my legal career, I have tried to always make sure that I know the dress code. Of course sometimes circumstances conspire against you.
A week ago on September 30 I was appearing in the Royal Courts of Justice on the final part of a Chancery Division trial. Because the Judge was a deputy (a QC sitting as a High Court judge) the date was fixed for the day before term started because that was an easy day to ensure that the QCs on both sides and the QC who was sitting as the Judge could all be available. As those of you who have seen silks robed will know, apart from the wig and silk gown you wear either a frock coat or a cut down version of the same which goes down to the waist (popularly known as the "monkey jacket"). In addition you wear the wing collar and bands. As the hearing went on into the afternoon, I decided to go back to Lincoln's Inn for lunch. Although the Benchers table was largely populated by Chancery Judges and silks (one of the judges wearing a light-coloured summer suit) no one else was robed since term had not yet started. I stuck out like a sore thumb wearing a wing collar, bands and "monkey jacket". It did not bother me because the outfit was appropriate because I was appearing in court. However perhaps it was a warning.
The following day was the start of the legal term. First off there was the welcome to the new Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger. Lord Neuberger is a very brilliant lawyer as well as being a very nice man, and an appointment which was about as universally popular with the Bar as any appointment ever can be. Understandably therefore the court room was packed for his welcome. After going to this, I was then going to the so-called "Lord Chancellor's breakfast". Although I had been invited before, I have never actually attended, but thought it would be good to go on this occasion because of course this effectively was the occasion for the establishment of the Supreme Court and hence a historic event.
The invitation stated "court robes". I had given no real thought to this until, as I wandered back into Lincoln's Inn after the welcome for the new Master of the Rolls, I saw various limousines leaving Lincoln's Inn for the service at Westminster Abbey before the reception. The silks in the limousines had the same formal wear that is worn when you take silk. That is not the same as the outfit you wear in court. It consists of a full bottomed wig rather than a normal wig, and buckled shoes and garters etc. It is readily distinguishable from ordinary court robes.
It is almost certainly my fault but it never occurred to me that court robes meant anything other than ordinarily used court robes. I had some enquiries made. It seemed likely that I would be the only person attending in court robes as opposed to formal robes. Whilst I'm not exactly shy and retiring, remembering my Cambridge experiences, I hardly wished to pass as a footnote into legal lore as the person who turned up improperly dressed on the occasion of the opening of the Supreme Court. In the time available it was simply not possible to get right outfit.
Thus, unfortunately, I had to give it a miss. Whilst I think it was the correct call, it is still disappointing. It just shows it is not enough to read the small print. It is important to check out whether the large print actually means what it says, since court robes on this occasion did not mean the court robes as ordinarily worn. Sadly there will never be another opportunity to be present at the start of the existence of the Supreme Court.