Anonymous wrote:OP again. Interview was yesterday. I wore the pantyhose. I was the only woman in the building wearing them, but it was fine. I feel confident it would also have been fine not to wear them.

Interesting. Your earlier comment about nobody under 30 wearing panty hose ever made me think. It's true, I don't usually wear panty hose even when I wear dresses and skirts, and my colleagues often don't, but for important events like an interview, we agreed we'd wear panty hose. No question about it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP again. Interview was yesterday. I wore the pantyhose. I was the only woman in the building wearing them, but it was fine. I feel confident it would also have been fine not to wear them.

Seriously?? Am I the only female attorney out there who doesn't want my 40 year old legs to be fully exposed???

Self-tanner. I mix a tiny bit with lotion. It covers a multitude of sins. Anything that can't be sufficiently fixed with self-tanner isn't going to be camouflaged by anything other than pants or opaque tights any way.

Anonymous wrote:OP again. Interview was yesterday. I wore the pantyhose. I was the only woman in the building wearing them, but it was fine. I feel confident it would also have been fine not to wear them.

Seriously?? Am I the only female attorney out there who doesn't want my 40 year old legs to be fully exposed???

OP again. Interview was yesterday. I wore the pantyhose. I was the only woman in the building wearing them, but it was fine. I feel confident it would also have been fine not to wear them.

I haven't worn panty hose in at least 10 years, including to court, depositions or interviews. I do wear a skirt that touches the tops of my knees, and make sure my legs are shaved.

But if you're going to be thinking about it, just do a pants suit.

How would you know that they are dorky pantyhose and not edgy stockings?

Anonymous wrote:I just do not understand how one can have bare feet in closed-toe shoes.

Seriously? It's very easy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course wear pantyhose. How can this even be a question?

+1

I interview lawyers on a regular basis and lots of women don't wear pantyhose. I really don't care one way or the other. I do, however, try to avoid hiring dorks. Attorneys typically work long hours together and therefore I consider whether the person seems like someone I'd want to spend time working and traveling with. It doesn't trump qualifications, of course, but there are tons of applicants for every position so I haven't had a problem finding qualified people who aren't dorks. I would not think someone was a dork for wearing pantyhose though.

Thanks for chiming in, Heather.

I think this is a pretty reasonable and realistic perspective, frankly. I've helped with hiring, too, at law firms (though this was a while ago) and in other types of offices, and one of the big things you're looking for, past can they do the work, is is this someone I am going to want to spend 10-12 hours a day with. I don't know how stockings or not would really affect that evaluation - but it might, and that could cut either way.

I'd say don't agonize over the decision. If you feel more comfortable wearing stockings, wear them. If you feel like having them on will make you uncomfortable or self-conscious, don't worry about that.

Amusing thread. I also vote panty hose - as one PP mentioned, the good/expensive/super sheer ones (DK, Calvin Klein) are barely noticeable. I usually opt for pantsuits, but I wouldn't go to court without them either - I think generally, whomever your audience (judges/jury/criminal defendants), folks are more likely to think/remark to themselves (if they notice at all) "whoa, that woman has bare legs" than "whoa, that woman has pantyhose on."

Anonymous wrote:I am a male lawyer in biglaw who has interviewed lots of people. Before this thread came up, it would never have occurred to me to notice or care whether a woman was wearing pantyhose. It seems some older folks consider it scandalous to go without, but it seems old fashioned to me to put them on. This isn't Afghanistan. You're legs are not naughty parts.

You are a little too invested in this thread about women and pantyhose, cowboy.

I always wear pantyhose to court. After kids, my legs aren't what they used to be. I don't even mean fat -- they're full of veins and are discolored in places. I'd much rather look a little "dated" in pantyhose than full-out old without them!

Fwiw Calvin Klein nude pantyhose are so sheer they are barely there. They ain't the ol' pantyhose-in-an-egg!

Anonymous wrote:I just do not understand how one can have bare feet in closed-toe shoes.

Quite easily.

Anonymous wrote:I am a male lawyer in biglaw who has interviewed lots of people. Before this thread came up, it would never have occurred to me to notice or care whether a woman was wearing pantyhose. It seems some older folks consider it scandalous to go without, but it seems old fashioned to me to put them on. This isn't Afghanistan. You're legs are not naughty parts.

My legs are very naughty.

Just kidding. You have to know your audience and err on the side of conservative, I think. I go to couirt often. I wear pantyhose for jury trials and judges I haven't been before and don't know their preference. Or I wear pants. I only do bare legs if I know it won't hurt my reputation for professionalism. My reputation for fashion and style, I couldn't give two (cents) about.

Anonymous wrote:"Ssit" not "suite"

Oh, PP. Keep trying.