UU����ֱ��

Dana Denis-Smith

CEO, and founder of the First Hundred Years project. 

Sometimes innovation comes in the shape of...new clothes.

For most of the past century, women in law have been conscious of forcing themselves into a system designed for and by men. Nowhere is this more visible than in the traditions of legal dress. The launch of Ivy and Normanton, the first courtwear outfitters aimed solely at women, sets out to redress the balance - taking us into a next hundred years of law that I hope we will see shaped more by men and women working together for everyone’s benefit.  

What women look like is too often used as a way to distract from their purpose and to maintain their “otherness” in professional spaces.  Women are frequently expected to adopt uniforms and garments designed for men. Sometimes this has serious physical repercussions, with items ranging from body armour to PPE frequently causing the female body discomfort or even failing to provide sufficient protection to the women wearing them.  Whilst the ramifications of ill-fitting clothing in the legal world are not as serious for a woman’s physical health, they are seriously important to her professional reputation.  Looking back through the history of women in law, we can see from society’s ongoing fascination with the image of the woman lawyer how what she looks like has been used to remind her of her status and set her apart from the male “normal”. 

Bertha Cave was one of the earliest campaigners for a woman’s right to practise law in 1903, taking her appeal all the way to the House of Lords.  In a report shared by Lady Brenda Hale in 2019, the New York Times described Bertha: 

“Clad in a navy blue walking suit with a bolero of the same material trimmed in white, and balancing a rather piquant black hat on her head, she carried her comely self into the presence of the august Judges.”

It goes on to make reference to a “package that looked like corsets” that she was carrying, before noting that the appeal of “the little woman” was promptly dismissed. It was to be another 16 years before women were granted the status of “persons” and allowed to practise law in England and Wales. 

Around fifty years later, Rose Heilbron was one of the most distinguished barristers of her time and the first woman, along with Helena Normanton, to be appointed King’s Counsel.  Yet contemporary press coverage was at pains to refer to her marital status, her family responsibilities and her dress. One article in the Daily Mirror in March 1952 pointed out that, “She can always be relied upon to wear attractive evening clothes”.  Three years later, the Daily Herald celebrated her successful run of acquittals, yet at the same time commented, “Even when she is dressed for Court, she is described as most elegant.”

Even as recently as 2015, Amal Clooney made headlines when asked about speculation over her outfit just before an appearance at the European Court of Human Rights. “It’s Ede and Ravenscroft” she famously explained, name-checking the legal outfitters and taking the focus firmly back to her professional identity.

It’s not only what women are wearing that has been used to signal their inferior status. Unbelievably, it was not until 2017 that Southwark Crown Court opened up its men-only robing room, following a decision by senior circuit judge Deborah Taylor.  Until then, women had been relegated to two smaller, inferior rooms in the 1980’s building.  This not only meant facilities for the women were lacking, with no space to work, but also that women were excluded from conversations that took place before court between male barristers. 

Over one hundred years after the first women lawyers began to practise, the legal world in the UK is still lacking in diversity, particularly at senior levels. There are still significant barriers and bias to overcome. At least with the opening of this latest venture, dress is not one of them.