We are not fans of Crocs here at Above the Law. We stand by this position, even though First Lady Michelle Obama — aka She Who Can Do No Wrong — has been spotted in them.

Apparently we are not alone in our opposition to Crocs. It seems that the people at Porsche — yes, the luxury sports car maker — have sued the footwear folks. In Germany.

Seriously? Yup. The lawsuit was mentioned in the Crocs (CROX) third quarter 10-Q, which is how it came to the attention of our sister site, Going Concern (via Footnoted).

So what is Porsche suing Crocs over? Find out at the links below.

Deadline Watch: Porsche Suing Crocs For ‘Cayman’ Use [Going Concern]
Porsche vs. Crocs… [Footnoted.org]

Earlier: Crocs: Ugly and Dangerous

Trick-or-treaters can get into serious trouble on Halloween. Especially if their Halloween activities involve arson. Or blackface. Or guns.

A student at BYU Law School donned a costume last week that was police-raid worthy. From the Salt Lake Tribune:

When Attorney General Mark Shurtleff spoke at a BYU Law School criminal procedures class Thursday, one law student came to class dressed in full SWAT gear, including an armor belt, and some students said he had carried a gun on campus, although they weren’t sure it was real.

Yeah, that’s probably taking All Saints’ Day Eve a little too far.

Ed. note: Have a question for next week? Send it in to advice@abovethelaw.com.

Dear ATL,

Should I be paranoid about pictures from Halloween being posted on Facebook? Some people don’t have their profiles set to private, and I’m worried it will come up in a Facebook or Google search (eek!). Maybe I’m being too paranoid? I don’t know.

Planning on Going as a Slutty Nurse

What’s so amazing about Halloween is that it’s the one day a year when you get a glimpse into the inner workings of other peoples’ minds. Everyone has an inner costume, and Halloween Purim is when it’s socially acceptable to wear it outwardly. There is a kernel of truth behind every disguise, which is why Prince Harry’s Nazi costume a few years ago was so disturbing. You can’t possibly wear a Nazi costume unless you’re at least 1/4th Nazi. In Halloween, Veritas.

Your fear of Halloween pictures showing up on Facebook really sounds as if you’re afraid of others seeing the real, slutty nurse you. A vixen. A healer. An unoriginal. This year, I considered going as Sheryl Weinstein or Blanket. Surely those costumes speak volumes.

As I’ve said repeatedly in these Pls Hndle posts (we’ve been at this for over a year, btw!), you have to be yourself, no matter what the cost. That’s why I left the law. That’s why I subscribe to Dog Fancy. If you want to be a slutty nurse, be one, Facebook and Google footprint be damned. Live free or die hard.

Happy Halloween!

Your friend,

Marin

Here’s a quick update on the “celebrity justice” beat. There has been a rash of break-ins in Los Angeles, targeting the homes of various stars. Is there a vigilante group of Robin Hoods lashing out at ostentatious displays of wealth during the recession? Not quite. Our sister site Fashionista reports:

While this is not surprising in itself, given that there would likely be some very nice goods found in any of the above, what is surprising is the news of who allegedly committed the crimes and why—a band of teenage girls obsessed with clothing and jewelry.

The older I get, the more I wish we could send all teenagers through some kind of Spartan-style education in discipline and respect before they are released back into the wild.

Click on the links below to read and comment, over at Fashionista and True/Slant.

Crimes of Fashion [Fashionista]
Paparazzi to blame for Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, and Orlando Bloom being burglarized? [True/Slant]

Let’s get the boring stuff out of the way. Albert Freed (pictured) won a trip to Hawaii (not pictured). As part of the vacation celebration, Mrs. Freed bought her husband some new Hanes brand briefs. But Mr. Freed is a husky gentleman, and apparently the new trunks couldn’t contain all of his junk. He sued Hanes, claiming they made “defective” underwear.

Let me turn it over to Escambia County (FL) Judge Pat Kinsey:

A question for the guys out there: How long would it take you to correct a problem involving sandpaper and your penis? Don’t you think penis chafing is something that requires immediate attention and decisive action?

And while we’re here, how long does it take for you to notice your stuff hanging out where it is not supposed to be?

Check out Albert’s excuse after the jump.

What should be done to protect fashion designers from copycats? Law professor Gerard Magliocca would probably say nothing, but other observers are more sympathetic to the designers. Law profs Scott Hemphill (recently married) and Jeannie Suk (half of celebrity couple Feldsuk) propose what they call “the squint test.”

Although fashion designs don’t currently enjoy copyright protection, designers who feel they’ve been ripped off do have other options. They can try suing under a theory of trade dress infringement, which is exactly what some of them have been doing.

Trade dress litigation over fashion designs seems as ubiquitous this season as thigh-high boots. Alexander McQueen recently sued Steve Madden, claiming that Madden’s Seryna peeptoe bootie is a ripoff of McQueen’s Faithful model (see for yourself here). Meanwhile, Forever 21, the fashion retailer known for cheap knock-offs, umm, affordable interpretations of designer fashion, has settled a lawsuit brought by Trovata, the Newport Beach clothing company. Trovata claimed that Forever 21 was copying its striped tees, sweaters and blouses.

You can read more, compare the designs, and comment, over at Fashionista (links below).

McQueen Sues Madden: Halle-f*&%#ng-lujah [Fashionista]
Settled & Stuff [Fashionista]

Yesterday, we mentioned that attorneys in the great city of Pittsburgh are worried about being confused with corporate elites during the G-20 summit. I was skeptical whether the dress code advice given to K&L Gates attorneys would actually help people avoid the scorn of protesters.

So we kicked the question to our friends at Fashionista. Here are some suggestions on what female attorneys should be wearing in the ‘Burgh this week:

My first thought for the ladies was to definitely keep it simple: a dark fitted jean (I’m currently obsessed with my “Curvy” style from the 1969 collection at the Gap), maybe a cool not suit-y black blazer, with a striped tee underneath and a simple black boot. Subtle, professional, but not too corporate lackey.

Or throw in a little retro vibe plus color, like this look from Chris Benz. Maybe I’m wrong, but brights don’t scream Big Law to me. The other option I came up with was to go luxe boho, like you’re part of the professional counterculture, if you will. Maybe something along the lines of this Anna Sui print with some black tights and a slouchy bag.

Click over to Fashionista for advice for the fellas. Or check out what their couture conscious commenters have to say about the conundrum.

Okay, I’m out of alliterative examples. Hop on the hyperlink below.

A Sartorial Conundrum [Fashionista]

Earlier: K&L Gates Tells Lawyers to Go Incognito During G20 Summit

Like most days, I started my morning with a Red Bull and the best morning man in the business, Pat Kiernan. Everything was proceeding normally, until I received this tip in the ATL inbox:

Women lawyers at City firm Clifford Chance have been given a £90 lingerie allowance.

Now, as you can well imagine, I don’t normally “spring” into anything — much less action. But within nanoseconds of receiving this information, I fired off a flurry of emails.

It turns out that the story comes from the Guardian - U.K. Here are some additional details about this (lacy?) fringe benefit:

Women lawyers at top City firm Clifford Chance are bucking the trend for reduced expenses now that their £90 lingerie-and-blouse allowance, if they work later than 11pm, has been reinstated. Inevitably dubbed the “90 nicker knicker allowance”, this may or may not be the most reliable indicator yet that the credit crunch is over. (Business is apparently so hectic that the firm has also installed sleeping pods.)

If you “work” later than 11 o’clock, you get to buy new panties? Why didn’t I think of that? More importantly, why didn’t Ben Franklin think of that and put it in the Constitution?

After consulting colleagues in London, a spokesperson for Clifford Chance in New York got back to me about bringing this commitment to sensual excellence to America. Sadly, it turns out that what sounds like one of the greatest Biglaw perks ever is in fact just a pedestrian acknowledgment of basic hygiene.

In her excellent interview with Chief Judge Alex Kozinski at the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference, Solicitor General Elena Kagan poked gentle fun at the controversy surrounding what she should wear while arguing before the Supreme Court, as the first female Solicitor General. She quipped: “That this is the big question of the Washington Supreme Court bar probably tells you something about the Supreme Court bar.”

And yet, despite making light of the issue, Solicitor General Kagan simultaneously built the suspense over what she would wear to One First Street. She deflected Judge Kozinski’s inquiries regarding her attire: “I’ve ostentatiously kept it a secret as to what I’m doing. If I told you, I’d have to shoot you.” (She was willing to admit, under intense questioning from Judge Kozinski, that she would not be arguing in Jimmy Choos.)

On Wednesday, Solicitor General Kagan ended the suspense, when she appeared before the Court to argue the Citizens United case. For recaps of the argument in this important and highly charged case, see Adam Liptak and Dahlia Lithwick.

We’ll focus on what really matters: What did Solicitor General Kagan wear on Wednesday? She eschewed the traditional morning coat, or some feminized version thereof, in favor of a pantsuit.

And that’s where the disagreement begins. Leading Supreme Court correspondents had different takes on its color. Tony Mauro of the Legal Times described it as “a businesslike black pantsuit with an open-collared white blouse.” But Dahlia Lithwick of Slate described it as “a tasteful blue pantsuit.”

So, what color was the Solicitrix General’s pantsuit? We reached out for comment to someone who ought to know: the SG herself.

With the arrival on-campus interviewing (OCI), inquiring minds want to know: How should I dress for my interviews?

Men have it easy. A dark suit, a white shirt, and a non-obnoxious necktie should fit the bill. If you have confidence in your fashion sense, you can be more adventurous. E.g., tastefully striped shirts; ties in cute patterns. For more thoughts on men’s fashion, see this earlier post.

Alas, the fairer sex has it harder. For advice on how women should dress in professional environments, read (and comment on) a pair of recent posts by our colleagues at Fashionista and our friends at Corporette.

Corporate Fashion? [Fashionista]
Corporette 101: The Old Mirror Trick [Corporette]

If an institution as stodgy as Harvard University can give rise to a fashion line, why can’t the Supreme Court of the United States?

What we’re wearing today, after the jump.

Here’s a story that might interest the “legalize cannabis” crowd. From our friends at Fashionista:

This is turning into the summer of the fashion crowd running into trouble with the law.

Last week, a major drug bust went down in Ralph Lauren’s tony New Canaan, CT store. The stock manager, 34-year-old Ricky Sullins, was arrested for accepting a FedEx package loaded with 14 pounds of marijuana. FedEx contacted the police before delivering the package since they could smell the drugs through the box and an undercover cop posed as the delivery man.

Fourteen pounds is enough to get an entire polo team high — including the horses. Since it involved a large quantity of pot moving through the state of Connecticut, we wonder if U. Conn. law student John Belanger was involved.

If Sullins is looking for representation, might we suggest Allison Margolin, aka L.A.’s Dopest Attorney? She’s a California attorney, but perhaps she can get admitted pro hac.

To read more and comment, click on the link below.

Pot and Polos [Fashionista]

What should a female Solicitor General wear to the U.S. Supreme Court? It’s a hot-button issue. For some excellent analysis, see Dahlia Lithwick.

The topic of SCOTUS-appropriate attire for a Solicitrix General keeps coming up. It popped up yesterday in Solicitor General Elena Kagan’s interview with Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, at the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference in Monterey.

From an attendee (who stayed at the conference longer than we did; we left the day after our panel):

In case you are not here, David: the solicitor general was just asked what she will wear at the Court, and she declined to say. But Judge Kozinski followed up to ask — expressly on your behalf [David Lat fka Article III Groupie] — whether she would be wearing Jimmy Choos. She said “no,” because the heels are too high to stand in while she argues.

Thought you’d want to know this breaking fashion news!

Shoe groupies: a little bit more, after the jump.

Is it sexist to dissect the fashion choices of Judge Sonia Sotomayor during last week’s confirmation hearings? Probably. I don’t remember anybody asking what Sam Alito was trying to convey with his confirmation tie choices.

But Sotomayor was trying to convey something with her choices. We might as well take a look at what message she was trying to get across.

Click the link below for the full Fashionista analysis, by editor Abby Gardner, and reader comments (which you’re free supplement with your own two cents).

Dressing the Part [Fashionista]

Judge Sonia Sotomayor and Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly, who was covering Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings, both sported electric blue blazers over black blouses today. Kelly — who is, by the way, also a lawyer (Albany Law / Jones Day) — joked on air that she called up President Obama and got advance word of Sotomayor’s outfit, so they could coordinate.

A reader poll, inspired by the regular US Weekly feature, “Who wore it better?” — after the jump.

Our colleagues over at sister site Fashionista aren’t alone. Lawyers also get worked up over shoes.

Some, like former Enron prosecutor Kathryn Ruemmler, show up to court in four-inch pink stiletto spikes. Others hate on commuter shoes and Crocs. Attorneys have strong opinions about attire, and that extends to footwear.

So we can’t say we’re completely surprised by a motion recently filed by plaintiffs’ counsel in the case of Lenkersdorf v. Sorrentino, now pending in Florida state court.

Motion to Compel Defense Counsel to Wear Appropriate Shoes at Trial — we kid you not — after the jump.

As the temperature rises, so does the desire to embrace informal summer fashions. Women are breaking out their strapless dresses and short skirts, and men are starting to sport shorts. While casual summer wear is fine on the weekends, don’t yield to the temptation to wear your flip flops to your white shoe firm.

Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle conveyed that message to its New York office with a memo sent out last week. In its e-mail making the case for “business casual,” the firm reminded associates that pecs are not to be admitted into evidence:

By all means resist the urge to acquaint us with your chest hair. If you think it necessary to impress the ladies with your efforts at the gym over the winter, think again - we are not a particularly good demographic for that.

After that, the memo’s author reminds the gents that loose-fitting suits can help hide pounds. We’re not sure what that has to do with business casual exactly, and suspect the firm just wanted to try to give equal attention to men and women so as not to appear to be solely lecturing females guilty of summer-slutty fashion sense. (As the Seventh Circuit did last month.)

After the jump, we bring you the full memo, which advises the ladies to “save it for the clubs or the beach.” According to the tipster who sent this along, the advice “wasn’t well received.”

Fashion is always a hot topic here at Above The Law. Last year, a partner at Winston & Strawn got females’ panties in a bunch by questioning the length of their skirts. In the fall, our post on suitable interview suits generated quite the long thread.

We seldom tire of talking about short shorts and see-through blouses, and we’re not the only ones. The judges and lawyers of the Seventh Circuit weighed in on fashion faux pas at a conference in Indianapolis this past week, reports the New York Times:

The topic was first raised by a United States district court judge, Joan H. Lefkow, of the Northern District of Illinois as the panel discussed good and bad trends in courtroom practice. Judge Lefkow said some women should dress more appropriately in court. According to an article in the National Law Journal and from the accounts of others in the room, she said one lawyer had shown up for a jury trial in a velour outfit that looked for all the world as if she was “on her way home from the gym.”

While the lawyer won her case, Judge Lefkow suggested to the judges and lawyers in the room that unseemly clothing in court was the kind of issue that should be the subject of quiet conversation in law firms.

What? Winning isn’t all that matters?

Judge Lefkow’s remarks led to some not-so quiet conversation during the rest of the panel. The judges voiced their disdain for loud ties, short skirts, and other titillating attire.

Read about their opinions, and share your own, after the jump.

Superstar litigatrix Kathryn Ruemmler, a litigation partner at Latham & Watkins and an Enron prosecutor before that, has been picked to serve as Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General in the Obama Justice Department. That title is a mouthful, but lawyers inside the Beltway know it’s a Big Deal.

The revolving door between the DOJ and Latham swings again. Ruemmler has traded places with another fierce female litigator: Alice Fisher, who rejoined the firm after heading up the Criminal Division.

As for Ruemmler, the government’s gain is Latham’s loss. Says one LW tipster: “She’s a really good lawyer, and a genuinely nice person. We’re very sorry to lose her.”

Kathy Ruemmler isn’t just a genial genius; she’s stylish, too. From the WSJ Law Blog, reporting on a day of the Ken Lay trial:

Speaking of footwear, the boldest fashion statement of the day — possibly rivaling O’Melveny paralegal Bill Evans’s goth getup for the gutsiest sartorial move of the week — came from the government’s Ruemmler. The deputy director of the Enron Task Force, who won convictions against four Merrill Lynch bankers in the 2004 Nigerian Barge case, paired a conservative gray suit with stunning 4-inch bright pink stiletto spikes.

Litigatrix indeed. Just because you work for the DOJ doesn’t mean you have to shop at DSW.

There’s a lot of diversity in Obama’s Department picks so far. Eric Holder, nominated to serve as Attorney General, is African-Amercan. Elena Kagan and Dawn Johnsen, nominated to serve as, respectively, Solicitor General and head of the Office of Legal Counsel, are women.

The full memo about Ruemmler’s move, after the jump.

If all the news about lawyer layoffs has gotten you thinking about career alternatives, here’s a business idea for you. From the ABA Journal:

Being well-dressed costs money. But for a lawyer, looking tailored and professional in an attractive, well-fitting suit is a worthwhile investment, Tony and Tara Costanzo say.

That message has put the 30-something married couple in business, helping several hundred clients including numerous lawyers in the New York area, order the right clothes without ever having to shop for them….

The Costanzas will meet busy clients as and where needed, and once held a clothing consultation in a courthouse restroom. Then they order the right clothes, in the right size. Ready-made suits start at just under $500; custom-made suits begin at close to $1,000 for men and $1,500 for women.

In the middle of a recession, the Costanzos — no relation to George — somehow have hordes of poorly-dressed attorneys willing to pay exorbitant prices for consultations in courthouse lavatories. When the going gets tough, the tough get new wardrobes.

Our tipster remains skeptical:

It seems as though the fashion bar would be much lower these days. After all, your adversaries are probably so worried about losing their jobs that they are likely to be wearing last year’s fashions — or other horrifyingly dated apparel, like a suit from back in the days when men were boldly exploring “skinny pants.”

I have a better idea: let’s take Michelle Obama’s self-congratulatory lead and start a recession-friendly wardrobe consulting business, to dress the desperate — but still fashion-conscious — in bargain finds from J. Crew and the Gap.

We leave you with a fashion tip for these troubled times: when it comes to skirt length, go long.

(Or maybe not? See these musings from our little sibling site, Fashionista.)

Consultant Helps Harried Lawyers Avoid Attorney Wardrobe Malfunctions [ABA Journal]
Attorney Wardrobe Malfunctions: Experts Offer Tips on Debugging the Dress Code [NYLawyer.com (registration required)]
Costanzo Clothiers [official website]