Today, as we start this new year, I am thinking about all the changes the passage of time brings.
I have been a lawyer for 25 years, and I feel like I am old enough to have significant perspective about where we have been. I remember going out shopping with my family to Jacobson’s in Grosse Pointe to find a suit to wear to my swearing in. With the guidance of my mom and sisters, I picked a red wool Pendleton suit with a pencil skirt, plaid vest, and double-breasted jacket. I was well poised to make a splash. I had found my go-to fancy suit to pull out on a big day at court.
Of course, the accouterments followed — nice shoes and, begrudgingly, nylons. It was the uniform of the time.
It wasn’t long until I really just hated the nylons-and-skirt routine. It felt like a costume designed to make everyone else around me comfortable, but not me. There were some women, but by no means a majority, wearing pantsuits and I wanted to step out and wear them more regularly. Of course, there was concern at that time about the potential collateral consequences. A side look or comment from the bench was rare but happened occasionally. Would clients think less of me? Would it make the wrong impression? I recall a couple times coming out of the elevator at court hearing a comment about looking like Rosie O’Donnell.
I found some comfort and courage, assuming that some women in the profession purposefully wore pantsuits to make a point but had no idea (until recently) about Helen Hulick who, in 1938, appeared in a Los Angeles courtroom to testify in a burglary trial wearing pants, much to the chagrin of the presiding Judge Arthur S. Guerin. Judge Guerin rescheduled proceedings not once, but twice, each time instructing Hulick that she should appear in court wearing “an acceptable outfit.”1
Hulick, a 28-year-old kindergarten teacher at the time, owned only one dress, which was a formal evening gown, and preferred the comfort of pants anyway. So, she continued to wear pants when appearing at the adjourned hearings.2
Judge Guerin held her in contempt for disregarding his instructions, and she spent time in jail. Hulick’s attorney, William Katz, obtained a writ of habeas corpus and carried the matter to the appellate court.3
Thankfully, on appeal, Judge Guerin’s contempt order was overturned, allowing her to wear whatever she liked to the next hearing. She appeared in her one and only formal evening gown.4
In Michigan, the standard wasn’t changed until 1970 when attorney Sue Weisenfeld championed the cause and convenience of allowing women attorneys to wear pants with an article in the Detroit Free Press titled, “Leave Maxis to Judges, She’ll Wear Trousers.” Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas E. Brennan quickly responded, officially declaring that female attorneys can wear pants in court.
Thank goodness for the champions of justice in this world like Helen Hulick, William Katz, Sue Weisenfeld, and Justice Brennan.
While it seems to have taken quite a while for this to happen, I’m so glad that over time, the pants dilemma became a non-issue. In this day and age, given our use of remote hearings, the primary concern just might be whether participants are wearing pants altogether.
It’s always a balancing act to leverage positive change without losing our poise. Such are the growing pains of a changing society.
I continue to be reminded that change is good. We have to push ourselves to be flexible and strive to keep learning. I am very glad that our courts are opening with remote participation and in other ways. I am excited to see how the Justice for All Commission will implement recommendations to provide 100% access to our civil justice system. I am glad to see more women and persons of color as well as those with varying backgrounds and experiences seeking judicial office.
And yet, there’s always room for improvement. When I was sworn in, only three women served as 16th Circuit Court judges, and now there are six women who serve at the circuit court level in Macomb County. Still, if you look at the numbers in their totality, out of the 91 circuit court judges we’ve had in Macomb County since the court’s inception in 1818, there have been a total of only nine women to serve at the circuit court level.5
So, here’s to all of us keeping up the efforts to pull others up, support friends, and encourage colleagues in our mutual journey toward an improved legal system. If we do that together, then I will confidently say — here’s to the great new days on the way in 2022.
The views expressed in From the President, as well as other expressions of opinions published in the Bar Journal from time to time, do not necessarily state or reflect the official position of the State Bar of Michigan, nor does their publication constitute an endorsement of the views expressed. They are the opinions of the authors and are intended not to end discussion, but to stimulate thought about significant issues affecting the legal profession, the making of laws, and the adjudication of disputes.