The Hole in the Defense: Lawyer Files Motion to Demand Opposing Counsel Wear Shoes Without Holes

quail_13_bg_041506Attorney Bill Bone believes that he has spotted the hole or holes in the defense of his opponent, Michael Robb. Bone has filed a motion with Circuit Judge Donald Hafele in Palm Beach demanding that Robb be ordered to wear shoes without holes in court. Robb’s tasseled Cole Haan loafers have visible holes on both sides and Bone insists that the shoes are cheap theatrics to play to the sympathies or jurors. Robb argues that they are just cheap. It is up to the Court to determine the Cole Hann truth.

Bone wrote the court that “[p]art 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 who are intently watching all counsel and the Court at that moment.” He insists that the shoes are merely “a ruse to impress the jury and make them believe that Mr. Robb is humble and simple without sophistication.”

Robb insists that these are his lucky “trial shoes” and scoffs at the suggestion of theatrics: “I’ve been practicing law for 21 years, and Mr. Bone thinks he’s finally cracked the key to my success? Gotta be the shoes. Like Michael Jordan.”

large_pulitzerprizewebOf course, holes in soles have played on sympathies in both politics and law.

Robb insists that he runs his shoes into the ground like a dead horse: “They were close to being retired but they’re back in play. You ride that horse until it completely collapses.”

Of course, there is a general rule for lawyers not to be the best dressed in a courtroom — a rule that is often ignored by lawyers who risk alienating a jury. I have also seen lawyers who change into cheap outfits for trial. One court was forced to deal with a male lawyer who insisted on wearing dresses as a statement against the “controlling male ethos.’

However, few judges would want to police the shoes of counsel. No one wants to be called a heel.

Lyrics Language: Scots
Tweet this Song | Follow Mp3lyrics on Twitter
Steve Winwood Hole in my Shoe Lyrics:
I looked to the sky
Where an elephant’s eye
Was looking at me
From a bubblegum tree
And all that I knew
The hole in my shoe
Was letting in water
(letting in water)

I walked through a field
That just wasnt real
Where 100 tin soldiers
Would shoot at my shoulder
And all that I knew
The hole in my shoe
[ Find more Lyrics on ]
Was letting in water
(letting in water)

(I climbed on the back of
a giant albatross
Which flew through a
crack in the cloud
To a place where happiness
reigned all year round
Where music played ever so loudly)

I started to fall
And suddenly woke
And the dew on the grass
It stuck to my coat
And all that I knew
The hole in my shoe
Was letting in water
(letting in water)
Lyrics: Hole in my Shoe, Steve Winwood

For a copy of the motion, click here.

For the full story, click here.

10 thoughts on “The Hole in the Defense: Lawyer Files Motion to Demand Opposing Counsel Wear Shoes Without Holes”

  1. Actually, my black Cole Haan loafers have a hole in one of the soles. I haven’t had any lawyers mention it yet, but my wife regularly complains about it. Of course, someone may be drafting a blistering motion at this very moment. Anyway, have any of you tried to find a convenient shoe repair shop recently? It’s as though they’ve dropped off the face of the earth in the last ten years or so.

  2. You know you’re really in trouble when this is the best your lawyer can come up with.

  3. But, shoes with holes have souls especially those thrown at that Bush troll…

  4. What this proves is Mr. Robb is not Senator Ensign’s secret lover. If he were he could buy a new pair of lucky shoes every day.

  5. The premise in the motion is that a poor lawyer will bring sympathy, but a well to do lawyer will not.

    At least to that jury.

    In general that premise will be wrong in much of the nation, because poverty is seen as a moral failing while wealth is seen as a sign of moral superiority.

    Especially in the states where the “prosperity gospel” has morphed from the “blessings and cursings” religious notions of Judaism (Leviticus 26).

    Perhaps the court will rule that if one counsel wants the other counsel to wear a certain type of shoe, said counsel will have to buy him or her that pair?

  6. Well Adali,

    You won the popular vote. Humm where have I seen that before?

  7. I remember not once but twice getting a scolding by two Judges that hated my Ugly ties. Whats the problem with holy shoes?

Comments are closed.