"The first problem is that it isn’t professional. Dressing properly is one way we signal to clients, other attorneys, and judges that we take our work seriously and we take court seriously."
Though I also think typography is important, you end up with a lot of non-serious and bad lawyers simply looking serious with good typography because that's what the serious and good lawyers do. Bad content is still bad content no matter how you dress it up.
And when typography is used as a signal, as more bad lawyers adopt it, it becomes a less and less effective signal--until it becomes standard fare, and not useful at all for telling serious lawyers from non-serious ones.
You sort of described the cyclical nature of fashion, without intending to.
Things that are "in style" slowly erode in distinguishability as they become mainstream and overused, and then the better elements from older looks are remixed into something distinctive and those who have the motivation and wherewithal to try them out (you could call them the fashion-conscious) bring these new looks into vogue.
You can find this in everything: music, clothes, art, not just typography. That's not to say it's a bad thing, it's just an evolution of human interest.
Out of those fields, typography remains the most closed discipline (I would argue creating a professional typeface is on the level of carving a violin, it is much more inaccessible than combining clothing accessories or beats in audio production), and since the elite foundries are still moving into the digital age kicking and screaming, there is much interesting progress to look forward to. It will be a while before typography is starved for ideas and recycles lazy, supercommercialized dreck the way (in my opinion) pop music has gone for the YouTube/iTunes era.
I've seen a few bad lawyers and there are a million and one things they'd rather do before worrying about their typography. It'll be a long while before the bad lawyers' typography is as good as the good lawyers' typography.
Comments
"The first problem is that it isn’t professional. Dressing properly is one way we signal to clients, other attorneys, and judges that we take our work seriously and we take court seriously."
Though I also think typography is important, you end up with a lot of non-serious and bad lawyers simply looking serious with good typography because that's what the serious and good lawyers do. Bad content is still bad content no matter how you dress it up.
And when typography is used as a signal, as more bad lawyers adopt it, it becomes a less and less effective signal--until it becomes standard fare, and not useful at all for telling serious lawyers from non-serious ones.
You sort of described the cyclical nature of fashion, without intending to.
Things that are "in style" slowly erode in distinguishability as they become mainstream and overused, and then the better elements from older looks are remixed into something distinctive and those who have the motivation and wherewithal to try them out (you could call them the fashion-conscious) bring these new looks into vogue.
You can find this in everything: music, clothes, art, not just typography. That's not to say it's a bad thing, it's just an evolution of human interest.
Out of those fields, typography remains the most closed discipline (I would argue creating a professional typeface is on the level of carving a violin, it is much more inaccessible than combining clothing accessories or beats in audio production), and since the elite foundries are still moving into the digital age kicking and screaming, there is much interesting progress to look forward to. It will be a while before typography is starved for ideas and recycles lazy, supercommercialized dreck the way (in my opinion) pop music has gone for the YouTube/iTunes era.
I've seen a few bad lawyers and there are a million and one things they'd rather do before worrying about their typography. It'll be a long while before the bad lawyers' typography is as good as the good lawyers' typography.