Rethinking professional attire: are trainers now an acceptable choice for the workplace?

As a legal headhunter placing partners into law firms, I often witness the implicit and explicit dress codes that permeate the legal industry. Increasingly over the past couple of years, I’ve met a number of partners who have worn smart trainers, (admittedly more Net-A-Porter than Asics) yet it is still a recurring topic of conversation as to whether they are suitable or not, especially for meetings and interviews.

When I was a lawyer (many years pre-covid), a corporate fitted suit and heels were a must for females and anything else was frowned upon. However, the post-covid work uniform has dramatically shifted. Gone are the ties; are trainers now acceptable?

This is my take as a recruiter:

Comfort and confidence: True confidence stems from comfort. When women feel at ease, whether in flats or heels, their performance and demeanor naturally exudes authority and assurance. We should champion an environment where women can choose attire that best suits their comfort and personal style.

Cultural shift: It's time for a cultural shift in the legal profession. By questioning outdated norms and advocating change, we can pave the way for future generations to feel empowered to make choices based on their preferences, not societal pressures.

Interviews: Being an interviewee is a different power dynamic than simply being an ensconced partner at a firm. Dressing more traditionally ‘smartly’ still can be used as a measure of respect. But it may also be that the interviewee is being counted by the law firm and setting out their message of “this is how I dress” to set the tone for the conversation ahead.

So, while heels may remain a choice for many, I do not think they should be an indication of how professional a female partner is. My personal opinion though and when I’m specifically asked about dress code for interviews, I do say shoes are more suitable then smart trainers.

Ultimately, encouraging an atmosphere in the office where individuals are valued for their contributions and character, not their footwear, should be the goal.