|
Post by Christine on Jul 16, 2017 0:23:21 GMT -5
I'm not trying to insult NYC lawyers or accountants, but I disagree that my clients have chosen poorly, and I think to say that is kind of insulting. You've just said that the general consensus i s that clients should look elsewhere rather than pay rates that NYC lawyers -- that would be ME, you might recall -- charge, and I'M being insulting? Yeah. Good night. No, I didn't say that they should. It's just that many do. Because of the cost. Cass, I can't believe that you don't realize how much more expensive an NYC attorney is than... virtually any other attorney outside of NYC. People make choices based on costs. That's not meant to be insulting, it's just true. NYC attorneys have a base, a pool of clients, oftentimes because their clients are wealthy, or because of specific circumstances, or maybe because they want the prestige of an NYC lawyer. But a lot of those clients don't need an NYC attorney, so, cost-wise they could well end up going elsewhere, if they realize they have that option. it's just about money.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jul 16, 2017 5:59:32 GMT -5
I pick my lawyers like I pick my mangoes: once a year, when they're full grown and easy to peel.
Wait a minute, I may be getting confused...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2017 7:08:55 GMT -5
You've just said that the general consensus i s that clients should look elsewhere rather than pay rates that NYC lawyers -- that would be ME, you might recall -- charge, and I'M being insulting? Yeah. Good night. No, I didn't say that they should. It's just that many do. Because of the cost. Cass, I can't believe that you don't realize how much more expensive an NYC attorney is than... virtually any other attorney outside of NYC. People make choices based on costs. That's not meant to be insulting, it's just true. NYC attorneys have a base, a pool of clients, oftentimes because their clients are wealthy, or because of specific circumstances, or maybe because they want the prestige of an NYC lawyer. But a lot of those clients don't need an NYC attorney, so, cost-wise they could well end up going elsewhere, if they realize they have that option. it's just about money. Thank you for 'splaining the New York legal market to me. derail/ Consider the possibility that high-end lawyers in New York (and other cities, for that matter) might have specialized knowledge and experience in various areas that make them more valuable to clients in their market. Consider that as with medicine or any number of other fields, it is not just a matter of whether you have a piece of paper with letters on it tacked up on your wall, but which area you choose to practice and how much skill and expertise you've acquired in that area. I'd agree that you likely don't need such a lawyer for an average individual's tax snafu down in Florida. If your clients decided to hire someone with expertise in complex commercial transactions to handle such an issue because of "prestige," they made a poor choice. Conversely, if Donald Trump hires a lawyer in flip flops whose practice involves handling estate planning for Joe Q. Average Income, he's making a poor choice. Even if you are wealthy or own a company, your particular business/issue will demand a certain level of expertise -- some are simpler and more routine than others. I'll also note that if you hire a lawyer in another state, you should have a damn good reason for doing so that relates to your case, not just because you are wealthy and want prestige or someone's cousin recommended him to you. The law differs from state to state, as do procedures, which is why every state has a different bar exam. And you don't emerge from law school or the bar exam knowing it all. And you don't ever learn about all the law in every area even with your own state. (Hence why I lead off so many off my comments on legal issues with, "that's not my area, but...") You gain it from years of practice in your area. Hire someone who doesn't know that area, and you will pay much more for your flip-flop-wearing lawyer to train on the job in your case, and almost certainly get a worse result. There are great attorneys in every state, but if your case revolves around a particular state's law, you probably are better off with an attorney who specializes in that state's law. It really all depends on what your case requires. Lawyers are not fungible any more than doctors are, or experts in any field. Hire the right lawyer with expertise in the area in which you need help. Don't pay for expertise you don't need. You don't need Gordon Ramsay to make toast for you. Your toast is likely just as good, or at any rate as good as it needs to be. His tacos may not be as good as those of the Mexican restaurant down the street from you, if tacos are not his thing. That doesn't mean his tasting menus aren't worth the price (to gourmets, anyway -- and if they aren't worth it to you, don't buy them). Then, too, as with doctors, some areas of the law command higher rates than others. If you work in a U.S. Attorney's or District Attorney's office, you'll need plenty of expertise in your area and you are likely a fantastic lawyer, but you won't get rich. Doesn't mean you're less valuable or competent by any means -- you just didn't choose an area where you'll bring in the bucks. (Just like my primary care physician earns less than a celebrity plastic surgeon.) Bob Mueller will make much less than Trump's lawyers, I'm sure. It certainly doesn't mean he's not as good! But the government doesn't pay as much as private practice. Hire what you need, no more and no less, and pay accordingly. The end. So yeah, actually, as a NYC lawyer, I find your "NYC lawyers are overpriced and not worth it and people only pay for them because prestige based on my experience as an accountant in Florida" a bit simplistic and a bit insulting. If you just want to say "not everyone needs to shell out for a top-tier NYC white-shoe law firm," I agree. /end derail To get the subject back on track, I think in general clients who hire very expensive corporate lawyers generally prefer to have them look the part. Which is why even those with casual dress codes in their offices tend to suit up when they meet with a client. For me, it is a mark of respect and professionalism to take that minor bit of effort. I also think it's nice to make a similar effort on other occasions when you want to put your best foot forward and demonstrate the transaction means something to you -- first dates, for example. Funerals. Job interviews. Really, how much trouble is it? By the way, I suited up to meet with my incarcerated pro-bono client, too. I submit that gave him an added bit of confidence in me that he wouldn't have had if I'd shown up in a sundress and espadrilles (even though he was getting me for free). He deserved that, IMO. And count me among those who like my doctors to wear pristine lab coats. I pick my lawyers like I pick my mangoes: once a year, when they're full grown and easy to peel. Wait a minute, I may be getting confused... Pfft. Yes, you are. That's how you pick spouses, not mangoes. Also, you should sniff them first to be sure they're ripe.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 16, 2017 9:45:32 GMT -5
I'm starting to see why Angie hates you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2017 9:48:52 GMT -5
Thank you.
It's hard work maintaining a level of moral turpitude that justifies Angie's hatred.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 16, 2017 10:46:55 GMT -5
On the professional attire bit - I don't have Opty's studies, but just from personal experience, I think there can be little doubt that how you dress affects your frame of mind. Even as an IT guy, I feel different (and am treated differently) if I dress like a code monkey - jeans and t-shirt - or "dress up" with khakis and a button-down shirt. IT guys can get away with wearing shorts and sweat pants, but even the other IT guys know the dude who dresses like that is probably never going to be more than a neckbeard sysadmin. On the other hand, a tie screams "I am meeting with the Bosses/I want to become a Boss."
Yes, it's arbitrary, but culture is like that. The degree of care you take in presenting yourself sends a message. If I met a lawyer who was wearing casual clothes, yeah, I know the clothes say nothing about how smart or competent the lawyer is, but I would certainly perceive the message: "You are not important enough for me to dress up for you."
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jul 16, 2017 11:53:59 GMT -5
Yes, it's arbitrary, but culture is like that. The degree of care you take in presenting yourself sends a message. If I met a lawyer who was wearing casual clothes, yeah, I know the clothes say nothing about how smart or competent the lawyer is, but I would certainly perceive the message: "You are not important enough for me to dress up for you." Yes, and this (along with not wanting to be perceived as less than professional and capable) is why I continue to dress up for clients. Because I care what they think. I care a lot, but that doesn't seem to stop me from wondering why we all keep going along with arbitrary things. My brother is a captain at Southwest. If you saw him when he's not flying, you would think I was lying. He doesn't brush his hair or shave, he goes around in board shorts and flip flops like a beach bum. (He's a lifelong surfer.) I bust his chops all the time, tell him if I didn't know him I wouldn't let him borrow my bike for fear he'd crash it. It's hilarious, really. Of course, he doesn't look like that when he's flying. People would run screaming off the plane. And Cass, I don't want to continue the derail, so I'll just say I'm sorry that what I said was insulting. That was not my intent.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 16, 2017 12:37:36 GMT -5
Yes, and this (along with not wanting to be perceived as less than professional and capable) is why I continue to dress up for clients. Because I care what they think. I care a lot, but that doesn't seem to stop me from wondering why we all keep going along with arbitrary things. Well, some arbitrary things are pointless. Like, I hate ties. They're obsolete and uncomfortable and continue to exist as a relic that serves only to signify formality. I'd be happy if ties stopped being part of formal men's wear. I imagine women feel the same way about high heels (though there are a few ev-psych rationalizations for those that boil down to them making women look sexier, and I think they do change a woman's posture in a way that men generally find appealing - which is not to say that that's a good reason for high heels to remain in fashion, just that unlike ties, it's not totally arbitrary). But, let's agree that certain modes of dress are arbitrary. So are certain modes of speaking. I imagine you also speak more formally to clients, being more careful to use proper grammar and avoid vulgarities and curse words, than you do when hanging out with your friends. Likewise, if you were speaking in your most formal register around friends and family, they'd ask who stuck a stick up your butt, right? How you dress really is much like how you speak - it's a form of communication. You are going to change modes depending on your audience. That's why we have formal and casual dress. Whatever "formal" and "casual" is in a given culture, you're still going to have situations that call for dressing more formally and situations where no one would normally dress formally, and if you switch modes, it's going to be perceived as inappropriate, or else sending a deliberately off-putting message. Wearing sandals and flip-flops in a professional office is like swearing in front of your conservative grandma.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2017 12:43:35 GMT -5
This may not be true for everyone, but I also find I work better in a tidy space. Psychologically, I feel more organized, more competent, and less harried. I try to straighten out my workspace every evening so I have a fresh start the next day.
Certainly, I think a tidy office tends to leave a better impression on those who enter it that you have your shit together, as opposed to one with crumpled, coffee-stained documents all over the floor, dirty cups everywhere, etc. I could point you to some very competent slobs, but I think, by and large, looking organized pays off. (Me, I'd be wondering "is that my paperwork heaped over there on the floor with the half-eaten sandwich on it?")
ETA:
And yes, absolutely to Amadan's point about speech. I do not swear like a sailor in front of my relatives or clients. With my friends, oh boy do I. I don't engage in salacious banter with colleagues. I do with a boyfriend. My clients want me to sound like an ivy-league-educated lawyer, not a down-home girl, but my family would giggle like idiots if I spoke to them that way.
If I explain a legal issue to a person with no legal expertise, I will use a different style than I would arguing it to a judge. I'll explain it differently to a client who is a CEO with an MBA than I might to an incarcerated client with a high school equivalency.
Is my more formal speech "arbitrary?" No. It's customary, depending on the situation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2017 14:22:51 GMT -5
So here's a question -- do you care if your underwear is neat and tidy (e.g., not full of holes and mangy) if no one will see it but you, or are you indifferent?
I am in the camp of "yes, it makes a difference to me," and moreover, I like it to coordinate. It need not be fancy or particularly expensive or sexy, but I feel more cared-for, confident, attractive etc. if I know I have on a neat matched set, not mismatched, stretched out, saggy things. It's irrelevant that no one will see it.
This may be partly or entirely a function of coming from a family where money was tight and my mother didn't think stuff like underwear mattered a bit. Girls in gym class changing rooms would make fun of my underwear -- as soon as I started getting enough money from babysitting and after-hours jobs, I replaced it.
But honestly, even if I'm just hanging about the house and know there is zero chance I'll see a soul, I feel better knowing I have nice neat underwear on.
My mother is indifferent to such things, and thinks it a waste to wear anything nice if no one will see you. Oddly enough, though, she puts on a full face of makeup every day. I don't. I will happily go without make-up, or just a touch of it, even if dressed up or meeting a client or whatever. The underwear no one will see is more important to how I feel than lipstick everyone can see.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jul 16, 2017 15:28:17 GMT -5
That's because you're looking at this in a very binary, black/white way coupled with a misunderstanding of the literature. There are several variables that affect workplace motivation and productivity. How one dresses is one of many variables that can affect it in a positive way. However, there are also various factors which can decrease motivation and productivity. Monotony is one of those variables (because it is strongly positively associated with boredom). So, sometimes businesses need to mix things up to affect this tug-of-war between factors that have positive effects and those that have negative effects. Some companies have apparently found that instituting "casual Fridays" can be helpful in breaking up monotony and having a positive effect on motivation and/or productivity. That doesn't mean it will work in every business. But those who have tried it and kept it have obviously found benefits, whatever those benefits may be. This example is a simplified way of looking at it because, as I said, workplace motivation and productivity is more complex than many people think. But, it is nonetheless an accurate representation of a possible reason for casual Fridays. Okay, so... in the study, when people put on white lab coats, and were told it was a doctor's lab coat, and were supposedly more productive, all that you just talked about is evidence that there's a lot more to it than that and we can't just make judgements about productivity based on what people wear. On Fridays, or by extension, on any other day. RIGHT? Wrong. You're confusing several different findings/ideas. One of the studies cited in the original article in this thread, and a study which I commented on previously, was one in which students dressed a certain way which led to an increase in productivity. We then shifted the conversation as it relates to the possible benefits that some companies have found from instituting "casual Fridays." I later also discussed the effects a person dressing in professional business attire have on the perceptions of other people (e.g., customers). Those are separate phenomena which you have conflated together in your quote above. Yes, these issues are somewhat complex (and, to be clear, I am the one who originally made that point), which is why it is rather frustrating that you keep confusing and conflating them and then assuming that those misrepresentations somehow prove or otherwise support your binary argument. And, this is the core of the problem. As I've stated before, these are rather complex issues and you are - by your own admission here - trying to boil them down to a this/that, "appropriate versus what really matters," "what is real versus what is not 'because culture'" binary that is inapplicable to this type of discussion. Yes, dressing professionally is associated with slight increases in productivity in certain settings, but so are lots of other things. There are also various factors which can counteract these effects, especially on an individual level. On the other side of that coin...yes, professional attire is generally perceived to be associated with certain positive traits by the general public and customers, but so are lots of other things. But, again, there are also various factors which can counteract these effects, especially on an individual level. However, its slight effects on the performance of the wearer is a separate issue from the perceived traits attributed to it by the observer. The key is to strike an optimal balance of factors that aid productivity with factors that aid in positive public perception, which is something that companies wrestle with all the time.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jul 16, 2017 17:58:52 GMT -5
Okay, so... in the study, when people put on white lab coats, and were told it was a doctor's lab coat, and were supposedly more productive, all that you just talked about is evidence that there's a lot more to it than that and we can't just make judgements about productivity based on what people wear. On Fridays, or by extension, on any other day. RIGHT? Wrong. You're confusing several different findings/ideas. One of the studies cited in the original article in this thread, and a study which I commented on previously, was one in which students dressed a certain way which led to an increase in productivity. We then shifted the conversation as it relates to the possible benefits that some companies have found from instituting "casual Fridays." I later also discussed the effects a person dressing in professional business attire have on the perceptions of other people (e.g., customers). Those are separate phenomena which you have conflated together in your quote above. No, I did not. In my quote above, I was specifically referencing productivity based on the perception that people have of themselves based upon what they are wearing. At no time in this thread have I conflated the two issues. They are, to my mind, quite separate issues. My binary but also conflated argument, including assumptions and misrepresentations? Do I win the internet? What I am saying is that if the issues are complex (and I agree that they are) then why is it generally accepted that "professional attire makes people more productive"? That's extremely simplistic, and yet that's what the study in the OP concluded.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 16, 2017 18:17:51 GMT -5
What I am saying is that if the issues are complex (and I agree that they are) then why is it generally accepted that "professional attire makes people more productive"? That's extremely simplistic, and yet that's what the study in the OP concluded. I don't think it concluded that "professional attire makes people more productive," like putting on a suit and tie is donning a magical Wardrobe of +2 Lawyering. My take was that it demonstrated a noticeable impact on people's performance - my theory for that would be that when you dress seriously and professionally, it puts you in a more serious and professional mindset. Akin to any other "positive thinking" method. Sure, the dress standards are completely arbitrary and cultural, but the point is that adhering to a set of arbitrary and cultural dress standards is itself a form of communication. If you are in a different frame of mind when you speak formally to an audience than when you're shooting the shit with your friends, why is it surprising that you are in a different frame of mind in formal attire than when you're lounging around in sweat pants?
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Jul 16, 2017 18:58:07 GMT -5
What I am saying is that if the issues are complex (and I agree that they are) then why is it generally accepted that "professional attire makes people more productive"? That's extremely simplistic, and yet that's what the study in the OP concluded. I don't think it concluded that "professional attire makes people more productive," like putting on a suit and tie is donning a magical Wardrobe of +2 Lawyering. My take was that it demonstrated a noticeable impact on people's performance - my theory for that would be that when you dress seriously and professionally, it puts you in a more serious and professional mindset. Akin to any other "positive thinking" method. Sure, the dress standards are completely arbitrary and cultural, but the point is that adhering to a set of arbitrary and cultural dress standards is itself a form of communication. If you are in a different frame of mind when you speak formally to an audience than when you're shooting the shit with your friends, why is it surprising that you are in a different frame of mind in formal attire than when you're lounging around in sweat pants? I was actually just about to quote your last post about language, etc. But no, my brain is not affected by my clothing. It just isn't. I do not stop thinking, or think differently, depending upon what I'm wearing. I have a hard time believing that I'm the only one who feels this way. But, as I said in my first post on the thread, I don't doubt that putting on professional attire works for some people* making them feel more professional and more serious and more productive. I think, really, that it's whatever a person is used to. And a person can get used to different things. I could get used to wearing professional attire to work every day. Cass could get used to wearing shorts to work every day. Neither of us want to, so we won't. The point is that it's just perception. Of self, in this case. Perceptions change, can be changed. *As far as the OP linked study though... I've been mulling over the whole concept all day and I'm just lost. Who were these people? Did they actually believe they were doing doctor things because they were wearing a doctor's lab coat? Doubtful, right? (And why is painting considered a less attention-focused job? Painting properly is fucking important, goddamnit, don't take me back there.) What were the tasks they were assigned? Why did they feel more attentive to a job that was presumably obviously not a doctor job, after being told they were wearing a doctor's coat, rather than a painter's smock? Were these stupid people? At what point did they forget that this was a study and decide they were doing something important because doctor coat? I'm sorry, I'm evil. Look, if you give me a job to do, I'm going to look at the job. I'm going to assess the importance of the job based on the characteristics of the job, not based on the characteristics of what I'm wearing. And if I'm wearing a doctor's coat while putting a puzzle together or taking a math test... doctor's coat? you've GOT to be kidding me. (But really, if I'm taking a test, I'm just going to try to get a perfect score on the test. Because duh.) Anyway, random. Sorry. Bottom line. I've concluded that essentially all this study did was measure people's preconceived notions, biases they already had: doctor: important; painter: not important. It wasn't the clothing that made them feel more attentive; it was the perception of the importance of what they were doing. The test just proved what we all already know: doctors are more important than painters. Fuck that. ETA: I was not directing any of that to you specifically, Amadan. Which you probably know, but just in case.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2017 19:10:12 GMT -5
No. I could not get used to wearing shorts every day, unless I worked at, e.g., a hotdog stand rather than as a lawyer.
Nor could I get used to a burqa, a bikini, or a ball gown.
In my view, professional attire matters in my profession.
|
|