Can lawyers have tattoos? This question might be on the minds of young lawyers who want to express themselves. It may also be on the mind of lawyers who have developed an interest in ink and are considering booking an appointment with an artist. Ever vigilant, these lawyers may be concerned about being judged down the road for anything other than their submissions in court. This concern also extends to the workplace: how will my colleagues and clients perceive my tattoos?
The answer to this question will vary depending on where one practices law or who they practice law with. For example, in China and Japan, tattoos are all but strictly forbidden in professional settings. Therefore, it seems that insight on this topic in the context of Ontario’s legal profession may be especially helpful to prospective lawyers looking to practice within the province.
What better source of knowledge could there be on such pressing legal issues than some of our very own professors at Osgoode? I was generously provided with some insight into this issue. Below is a synthesis of what I’ve gathered from these conversations.
In court, a distinctly Canadian dimension to this issue is the practice of gowning. Yes, it’s true: in Ontario, lawyers appearing before the Superior Court in trials, motions, and appeals must wear a gown. There are exceptions, but generally, it is good advice for lawyers to keep their gowns close by if they plan on practicing as barristers.
This has a few implications for self-expression. Gowns may implicitly suggest that uniformity in the appearance of counsel is a value that the courts and the profession view as worth preserving. Judges also have the authority to control and decide what is acceptable presentation by counsel in their courtroom. If a gown can cover a tattoo, it’s almost certainly okay. It was commonly opined that colleagues should not notice a single tattoo. There was concern that visible tattoos, particularly on the face and neck, may be more likely to affect how a lawyer is perceived in the courtroom.
A surprising revelation was that judges are, in fact, human like the rest of us. Aside from cultural practices, could a decision-maker conceivably be offended by a visible tattoo? It’s possible, but probably less likely as new generations of lawyers are admitted to the bar and seated on the bench.
Regarding visible tattoos, it may be prudent to be mindful of the unconscious biases that judges hold. Some sacrifices may need to be made in your client’s best interests. Conversely, there are visible tattoos that constitute serious and legitimate religious or cultural practices. It follows that the discretion of judges or recruiters could conceivably become discriminatory in some instances.
In the workplace, the acceptability of tattoos is likely firm-dependant. Although no recruiters were consulted for the purposes of this article, it is interesting to think about whether having tattoos would factor into a recruiter’s perception of a candidate. The easy answer is that if it can be covered by business attire, no one will know you have a tattoo unless you want them to. It’s also not difficult to imagine an area of practice in which tattoos are seen as a sign of dedication and commitment to a cause. In the office, generational preconceptions of what a lawyer “ought” to look like are being challenged as new generations of lawyers enter the workforce.
A visible tattoo may also conceivably affect a client’s perception of their prospective counsel. As is becoming a pattern, the shield of business attire gives lawyers considerable latitude as to the parts of their body they can tattoo. As for visible tattoos, it may be wise to keep them in line with your firm’s dress code. It is also not out of the realm of possibility that tattoos could be a point of connection between a lawyer and their client.
The practice of law and legal academia are two very different spaces in this regard. It was commonly agreed that those interested in the academic aspect of the law would have less to worry about when it comes to tattoos.
There are still cultural, civil, and professional limits on how and in what context lawyers ought to express themselves through their appearance. A lingering question was what difference there is, if any, in interview success for lawyers who have visible tattoos, have coverable tattoos, or have none at all. However, a resounding opinion was that these limits are relaxing over time as cultural and professional norms shift.
Even within these limits, there seems to be a range of acceptable options for self-expression through tattoos. Gowns may even be a blessing in this regard. With the realities of the profession in mind, lawyers interested in getting inked need not necessarily cease and desist from this form of self-expression after all.