A defense attorney in Florida has apparently been wearing shoes with holes in the soles in order to foster good faith from the jury that he’s just a simple lawyer (like Matlock, I guess).
Upon reasonable belief, Plaintiff believes that Mr. Robb wears these shoes as a ruse to impress the jury and make them believe that Mr. Robb is humble and simple without sophistication. . . .
Part of this strategy is to present Mr. Robb and his client as modest individuals who are so frugal that Mr. Robb has to wear shoes with holes in the soles. Mr. Robb is known to stand at sidebar with one foot crossed casually beside the other so that the holes in his shoes are readily apparent to the jury . . . .
Then, during argument and throughout the case Mr. Robb throws out statements like “I’m just a simple lawyer” with the obvious suggestion that Plaintiff’s counsel and the Plaintiff are not as sincere and down to earth as Mr. Robb. Mr. Robb should be required to wear shoes without holes in the soles at trial to avoid the unfair prejudice suggested by this conduct.
“I’ve been practicing law for 21 years,” he said, “and Mr. Bone thinks he’s finally cracked the key to my success?” Robb scoffed at the idea. “Gotta be the shoes,” he said. “Like Michael Jordan.” Robb claimed that he had been planning to finally retire his “trial shoes,” as he called them, but said this had changed his mind. “[T]hey’re back in play,” he said. “You ride that horse until it completely collapses.”
On the other hand, wearing holey shoes in court could also indicate a lack of success at one’s profession to the point where you couldn’t afford to purchase a replacement pair, so I don’t see how this argument holds. The judge denied the motion.
