Worried You Look Awful on Zoom?
In this age of remote work and Zoom calls, can lawyers finally rid themselves of the tyranny of appearance?
April 20, 2020 at 06:18 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The American Lawyer
Be honest now, how many of you have hit the "hide myself" button during a Zoom conference call because of the state of your hair?
Oh, I know this is an awfully trivial topic. But isn't that exactly what we need at the moment?
Here's what I'm hearing from the front lines: Lawyers are increasingly opting out of being seen. "It used to be maybe two or three lawyers out of 10 or 12 don't show their faces," says an Am Law 200 partner about some Zoom meetings. "Now, it's more like seven."
Some are being totally honest and admit that they're too vain to be seen in their natural disheveled state. Others, however, are claiming that there's a technological glitch with their computer—an explanation no one buys.
Hey, let's not shame each other. It's okay if you're not ready for Prime Time. I did it the other day. I refused to be seen during the first 10 minutes of an office Zoom call because I was in the bathroom, desperately trying to fluff up my yucky, matted hair.
And while we're being honest, let's ask another pesky question: Are women more apt to dodge the screen? And what does this say about the different expectations we have of women and men in the workforce, even in the face of a pandemic?
"Yes it is true," says a female lawyer who works in government about feeling self-conscious about her looks on Zoom calls. "I myself prefer to opt-out of being seen, but I've been called out for not being sufficiently visible and told to move to an area that allows more light to hit my face. Ugh!"
More often than not, hair is the issue. "Hair matters because it is a major physical trait for both sexes, but it matters more for women because men judge women based on their looks more; they just do," says an Am Law 100 partner. She adds, "I still recall a senior female partner who was seriously marginalized behind her back because of how long she let her gray roots grow."
Those standards might have been true in normal times, but is that still the case now?
Well, yes and no. Some women say they make a point of "looking professional" during calls—meaning they put on makeup and a nice top (though who knows how many are wearing pajama bottoms)—undoubtedly spending more time on grooming than male colleagues. "If I'm talking to a client or a judge, I put on lipstick, mascara and wear a suit," says one female litigator. "With internal firm meetings, not so much."
Others, however, are taking a hiatus from the usual rituals of female grooming. "I've temporarily liberated myself from the tyranny of appearance, which is currently easy to do, given how few non-family members I see, and given how much of my face is obscured by a mask when I am out in public," says the government lawyer.
A few say they're becoming radical: going gray: "If Keanu Reeves' girlfriend is completely gray, why shouldn't I be too?" says a female partner. "It's as good a time as any to go natural." Another one says, "Frances McDormand is my new role model."
What's also making women more relaxed (or is it lax?) about their appearance is that their male colleagues aren't looking so hot either. Several noted that a lot of men are growing beards—with mixed results.
"It's not a good look," says one senior in-house lawyer. "Cavemen were never attractive." Moreover, she adds, now that her male colleagues can't take male clients to all those professional sports events, they're really letting themselves go. "They don't look so great unshaven in their baseball caps and sweatshirts."
Put another way: There's no one to impress these days.
Contact Vivia Chen at [email protected]. On Twitter: @lawcareerist
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'You Don't Know Everything': GCs Say Success Leading Nonlegal Functions Starts With Humility
5 minute readCleary Creates Nonequity Partner Tier, Calling for 'Innovation and Adaptation'
5 minute readGCs Face Peril as Foreign Bribery Probes Second-Guess 'Routine' Advice
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250