Jump to content

Uriel

Moderators
  • Content Count

    6046
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    218

Uriel last won the day on August 28

Uriel had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

7472 Good People

3 Followers

About Uriel

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

11112 profile views
  1. Uriel

    Any lawyers out there??

    Good! Got a few interviews down, hoping to pick up a couple more this weekend and then start posting them.
  2. Nuke it from orbit.
  3. Not one that mighty! And to be fair, I'm not holding this guy I just found on an image search up as a style icon or promoting a Regatta look around the office. And I'm certainly not saying that every one of the outfits on this Instagram are gold. Some are absolutely brutal. Obviously linking to a site with more than one example was a mistake! The simple point I was trying to make is that a larger guy can look good in a vest, particularly where the vest is a different fabric from the suit as a whole. Sounds like the crowd isn't with me on that. Fair enough. We don't all have to like the same things.
  4. Yeah, I'm not a fan of this look either.
  5. Whoa, whoa, whoa. No one is running down the pocket floof, earl of the pocket squares. I said once that at the very least you should have a neat square, and that a floof might not be appropriate in all situations. I've got a Robert Talbott situation going on here today. Let's stop this firefight before it starts.
  6. @epeeist: Okay, "all" is an overstatement. But it does remove the issue of the belt visibly slipping lower over the course of the day, and it allows you to wear a high-rise trouser while hiding the waistband, which avoids the issue of whether you want to wear a belt all the way around your stomach or pull it up underneath. It also makes braces easier and less distracting to wear. I guess we can all disagree. I think it's a great look because it doesn't try to hide anything. I read it like a look that embraces a larger size and makes a broader guy look forceful. But if I'm alone in this, I guess that tells you something about the risks of going in that direction. That's a shame, though. I'd love to see more of this stern-industrialist look kicking around.
  7. Oh, I'll take you all on over this one. A vest does away with all issues having to do with the waistband/waistline and obviates any issues corresponding to tie length. It's often just a matter of changing the fabric for the third piece. https://www.instagram.com/sartorial_en_plus/
  8. One thing I might add about when-and-when-not: I don't see nearly enough three-pieces on big fellas. It's an awesome look, especially for a barrister. I think a guy with a huskier build can get away with wearing a three-piece a little more often.
  9. Uriel

    Interests Section

    Probably more correlated to the fact that there are something like six times as many OCIs to go around in 2L than 1L. You can survive without an Interests section. It's just there to help your interview go smoothly, in my view. It shouldn't have any impact on whether you get an interview or not.
  10. Uriel

    Starting Your Own Practice

    (Just posting to be updated on replies)
  11. Definitely don't consider these hard rules of "etiquette". It's just an analysis of when you want to distinguish yourself visually from other people: when you want to do it, how, and why. People really notice when someone takes a step towards just looking different from everyone else. I still cleave to the idea that it's not that you "earn it", but that, as someone said, you don't want your clothes to define you. You want them to follow along from who you are. (I think it was Cary Grant that said the man has to wear the suit, and not the other way around?) You just don't want to look like a 12-year-old smoking: trying to establish an identity for yourself artificially. People don't react well to that. Our most flamboyant dresser here at the firm is insanely wealthy. If I were to dress like him, people would wonder what was wrong with me and why I was trying to attract so much attention. But because it's him, it's just like spotting a butterfly. There goes that dude, living his best life. Shouldn't there be a champagne flute in his hand? The only other associate I knew who wore a three-piece was a securities regulation guy, and he started from Day One. People noticed. He was well-liked, but he was also someone that would make you do a spit take if he got on the dance floor. Again, it suited him. He was a buttoned-down kind of guy. Organized, respectful, a cool head in a tight situation. The suit did become part of his identity, but like me, it reinforced the personal attributes that he was happy to promote. People assumed that he was quiet, maybe uptight. And... he kind of was, so there was no conflict there. People's assumptions came into line with how he presented himself. There was something authentic about a sweet, thoughtful, dutiful first-gen dude in a three-piece suit. He looked like who he was. By the same token, we had a dudebro corporate associate with a loud love of the Leafs and beers switch to a double-breasted look. He seemed clownish, like he was wearing his dad's suit or doing a Don Cherry impression. It amplified the boorish yooooo part of his personality. That didn't last long. You've gotta have one hell of a swagger to pull off a double-breasted suit unless you're pencil-thin.
  12. The one place I'll differ from you is on the pocket square. I'm almost at the point where I feel like it's sloppy not to have one. Maybe that's just me. But even if you're in a plain navy suit, white shirt, red tie, a quarter-inch of plain white pocket square I think can only improve the way you look, no matter the audience. Floofy squares, of course, are another story.
  13. I retract my statements about the Boss outfits and defer to those that have some idea what they're talking about. I'm not nearly enough of a fashion guy to know the first thing about womenswear. I also agree with everyone above about the risks of three-piece suits. As I mentioned, I had a little list going of what sorts of things I'd tend to wear and when; and it would have made clear that you definitely don't wear one for a job interview, for all the reasons stated above. As Jaggers says, you kind of just know when you're that guy. Another way of saying you wear what suits you. Your marketing team will call it 'branding'. I came into my firm with some unshakeable first impressions. I came out of the U of T with a bunch of publications, and one of my first steps with the firm was to get them to help out with one of them. I studied class actions way too much and knew all the case names off the top of my head when I arrived, which struck some people. I found myself getting basically all of the research memo work for big cases. Mrs. Uriel was doing her Ph.D. I have an 18th century copy of Charles I's death certificate and a Shakespeare lithograph on the wall. Everyone running into me on the subway usually caught me with my nose in some kind of book six inches thick. It didn't take much to become the Rupert Giles of the litigation department, cleaning my glasses ruefully as the summer students knocked me down on their way up to a free cocktail reception. That reputation had its ups and downs. I got a lot of work and people relied on me, but partners were hesitant to let me argue trials until they had actually seen me cross-examine someone. They put a lot of emphasis on landing clients because it wasn't clear if that was something the Phantom of the Library could do. A few years in, rather than trying to fight it I just embraced it, started wearing the three-piece as often as I liked and declining the occasional event because I hate fun and youth and the rock-and-roll musicks. It became part of the brand. So when I turn up in a tweedy three-piece with a cognac briefcase, sure --- that's Uriel. But I would never wear it to make any kind of first impression at a business event, job interview, witness examination. Once you get to know me a little better, though, I'm told it fits the personality. And, on balance I think for better, just about everyone knows who I am. I'm not just another faceless bearded white guy in a navy suit (and brother, there are a lot of us). By the same token, we've got the dealmaking partner that is allergic to jackets and just wears slacks and a tie all day (definitely not to show off that he still works out every day at 45). We've got the force-of-nature M&A guy that will boast that he hasn't worn a tie since the '80s and then get out drinking with the summer students until 3 AM. There's the regulatory partner that got into this business to wear all the best labels and doesn't leave an inch of her walk-in closets unturned. There's the construction lawyer that doesn't even come into the office if he can avoid it, and who takes pride in having mud on all his shoes. The tax lawyer with the surgeon's cuffs and the actual, fresh flower in his custom-cut sport coat's boutonniere every day. The labour partner who seems to have an inexhaustible supply of Jedi robes and bangles to drape herself in. The research lawyer working his way through a cargo container of identical beige polo shirts. The two real estate partners who buy all the best, most shiny stuff, none of which goes together. The cycling enthusiast who kicks around the office in a dress T-shirt and a $150,000 watch. And about 300 other lawyers that just wear whatever will get them through the week until they're up at the cottage. This profession is forgiving and even encouraging of eccentricity. You just have to grow into it a bit and sort out what your style is, what makes you comfortable, and how well that's going to fit with how you want to present yourself professionally.
  14. For my money, anything black cut by Hugo Boss. Though I do have to say that the most floored I've ever seen a witness was getting levelled by someone in a blue floral print and horn-rimmed glasses. I don't know if I'd recommend it, given how brutal the profession --- and especially clients/witnesses --- can be to women lawyers; but I've known a few litigators who found that their style and personality worked better by intimidating the boys in a different way. Just a matter of personal preference in how you present yourself. I don't yell and thump around or threaten people; I'm a bit more professorial in the way I litigate. It fits my personality better, and I like my threats to be rare (and therefore credible). "Practice" juries and moot judges have told me time and again to stick with my natural, kinda helpful, self-deprecating style rather than feigning outrage or aggression. By the same token, I've known some women that have a natural style that fits well with dressing in a stereotypically feminine way, and getting what they need out of opposing counsel's awkwardness, condescension and/or underestimation. It's cliched to say, but you'll be most intimidating when you're most confident. If you're terrified of wrecking your suit, or nervous about how you'll look in a dress, you won't do as well as you might in a plain black pant suit from Banana Republic. Same token, if you're in one of those paisley D&G suits with a massive silk scarf but you know you look like the most interesting person in the room, that might be your baller outfit.
×