Probably never. People will always judge others based on how they are dressed. We subconsciously attach a certain image of what people should look like. And these dress codes are often enforced by society indirectly. 99% of people would not want to have a lawyer dressed casually to court and will pick someone else even if the alternative is by all accounts not as good as the casually dressed lawyer.
Idk about that one. How a person maintains their suit, tie, shirt, and shoes, says a lot about how meticulous they are as people, and I want an absolutely anal attorney.
That may be usually true, but I don’t know if it’s as good an indicator as you might think it is. I’m extremely pedantic, anal, stubborn and meticulous when it comes to arguing but I rarely dress meticulously - in fact quite the opposite. I’ve also met plenty of people who dress and groom themselves extremely well but couldn’t argue their way into a root in a brothel.
No worries mate! I’m not 100% sure but I’ve been told that it comes from another Aussie slang saying - when something is ‘rooted’ it’s ‘fucked’, meaning that it’s messed up in some way, which comes from how tree roots mess up plumbing/foundation of a house.
If a house is ‘rooted’ then it’s fucked beyond repair, so by extension root = fuck for its other meaning (to have sex).
For most people it’s subconscious. Society presents the image of a lawyer that constantly wears a suit. Most lawyers do wear a suit. So when they see a lawyer without a suit it puts them off because it clashes with the image of what a lawyer is suppose to be. But like I said it’s subconscious no one just thinks to themselves “all lawyers should wear suits or else they are untrustworthy”.
Probably never. People will always judge others based on how they are dressed. We subconsciously attach a certain image of what people should look like. And these dress codes are often enforced by society indirectly. 99% of people would not want to have a lawyer dressed casually to court and will pick someone else even if the alternative is by all accounts not as good as the casually dressed lawyer.
I’d be happy to have a lawyer in casual attire if it wouldn’t bias the judge and jury against him (or me).
Idk about that one. How a person maintains their suit, tie, shirt, and shoes, says a lot about how meticulous they are as people, and I want an absolutely anal attorney.
That may be usually true, but I don’t know if it’s as good an indicator as you might think it is. I’m extremely pedantic, anal, stubborn and meticulous when it comes to arguing but I rarely dress meticulously - in fact quite the opposite. I’ve also met plenty of people who dress and groom themselves extremely well but couldn’t argue their way into a root in a brothel.
Almost afraid to ask, but, ‘root’?
Aussie slang; root = fuck.
Thanks, learned something new.
No worries mate! I’m not 100% sure but I’ve been told that it comes from another Aussie slang saying - when something is ‘rooted’ it’s ‘fucked’, meaning that it’s messed up in some way, which comes from how tree roots mess up plumbing/foundation of a house.
If a house is ‘rooted’ then it’s fucked beyond repair, so by extension root = fuck for its other meaning (to have sex).
A misspelling of “room,” perhaps?
I’ll buy that for $1.
Thats right. I judge them by how they are dressed. Fetterman is a working class american, and the others are my enemy.
sounds like you have fully absorbed the narrative his PR team has pushed.
My knee jerk reaction to seeing anyone in a suit is “Asshole”.
I feel like there some that do and most that don’t but the some that do are such cunts they try to force the most of us to do what they want
For most people it’s subconscious. Society presents the image of a lawyer that constantly wears a suit. Most lawyers do wear a suit. So when they see a lawyer without a suit it puts them off because it clashes with the image of what a lawyer is suppose to be. But like I said it’s subconscious no one just thinks to themselves “all lawyers should wear suits or else they are untrustworthy”.