Business casual: Contradiction in terms?

An article by Debra Cassens Weiss, posted this morning on ABA Journal.com, addresses one of the more frightening issues facing the legal profession today: what to wear for "business casual."

Weiss' article cites Neonu Jewell, "an export compliance counsel with Accenture in Chicago. She told the Wall Street Journal that moving from one law firm or company to another can mean a costly new casual wardrobe."

When Jewell worked at a Fortune 500 hospitality company, Weiss writes, "employees got around the ban on denim by wearing sweats." But gym wear wasn't allowed when Jewell moved on "to a Washington law firm that even disapproved of open-toed shoes on summer Fridays. On business casual days at Accenture, Jewell often wears suits or nicely tailored pants and blouses."

The Journal article described in Weiss' article "offered its own business casual advice culled from interviews with wardrobe consultants. They said both women and men shouldn’t stray too far from traditional business attire. Men could go without a tie or could wear dress pants and a blazer instead of a suit. Women could wear pants, blouses with collars and unmatched jackets. Accessories should include well-made shoes and good watches."

That seems reasonably safe. Some years ago, I remember having to go out to the home office of an insurance client for a meeting. I was wearing a suit. My host was wearing a golf shirt and slacks. "I should have told you," he apologized, "we're business casual here every day now."

"That's OK," I improvised. "This is a brown suit. For a lawyer, anything other than a blue or gray suit is business casual."