It is always a shock when a paper of record, such as yours, makes a factual error of any kind. I refer to your in-depth exclusive on dress down days (The Lawyer, 10 July).
In this item it was suggested that here at DLA we do not have the excitement and diversion of dress down days, apparently employed to ensure that the average City lawyer does not believe themselves to be trapped in a version of Groundhog Day.
Here at DLA we try to ensure sufficient variety and excitement not to need dress down days (and surely having one every day flies in the face of the raison d'etre?).
However, at the discretion of each office, and certainly here in London, we do have fairly frequent dress down days. Sometimes because it is hot, sometimes for Children in Need or The Prince's Trust or other charitable causes, sometimes just for fun and sometimes, such as this Friday, just to prove to The Lawyer that we do!
I do wonder whether "dress down" is the right expression. "Dress up" would perhaps seem to be more appropriate for our office, although this may just be a reflection of the extraordinary good taste of our people!
For those of us who always thought that "St Michael" was THE designer label, this really puts the pressure on and personally I could not possibly cope with a dress down day every day. Matching my socks is enough of an ordeal!
I trust, therefore, that The Lawyer will publish a fulsome apology for misrepresenting our dress position!
Paul Nicholls, City office managing partner, DLA
The editor replies: We apologise for this oversight. Perhaps now that Sister Nigel's art column has finished, Paul could offer us a weekly style guide.
