Rebel Wilson, the star of Pitch Perfect, has made headlines not only for her legal battles but also for her courtroom attire. Currently facing a defamation lawsuit filed by actor Charlotte MacInnes, Wilson has appeared in court wearing a consistent uniform of white button-down shirts, neutral knitwear or suiting, cropped black trousers, and heels. This demure, court-appropriate style contrasts sharply with her usual glittery and vivacious public persona, echoing a similar wardrobe strategy she employed during her 2010s trial against Bauer Media.
The Significance of Courtroom Attire
Wilson is far from the first high-profile figure to alter her wardrobe for legal proceedings. While fashion should not influence the outcome of a case, how one presents in court can carry real consequences, especially in criminal trials before a judge and jury. The presumption of innocence is a fundamental right, but it is not impermeable. As Emma Turnbull, an accredited criminal law specialist and director of Emma Turnbull Lawyers in Sydney, explains, 'Jurors, in particular, bring their own life experience and unconscious biases with them, and despite clear directions, people tend to judge quickly and often harshly.'
Appearance is one way this bias manifests, signaling power, threat, or virtue before words are spoken. 'A criminal case has a life of its own, there are many things beyond our control. Our client's appearance is something that, to a certain extent, is a known and controllable factor and as defence lawyers is something we take seriously,' Turnbull says. 'Magistrates, judges and juries inevitably form impressions before any evidence is tested or any mitigating submissions heard. You want those impressions to be as favourable as possible.'
Legal Principles and Clothing Choices
To protect the presumption of innocence, the United Nations human rights committee states that defendants should not ordinarily be handcuffed or presented in a way that suggests they are dangerous criminals. Similar principles apply to clothing, with incarcerated defendants often given the option to wear civilian clothes during trials. However, fashion can also provide plaintiffs an opportunity for expression when speech is constrained. For instance, Kim Kardashian famously ignored prosecutors' advice to 'tone down' her look when testifying against those convicted of robbing her of an estimated €10 million (A$16 million, US$11.7 million) in jewellery from her Paris apartment in 2016. She gave evidence dripping in diamonds, stating, 'They're not gonna take my power. I wanna be who I wanna be... they took that away from me for so long.'
Turnbull's general advice for clients is to dress as though attending a job interview in a professional services environment. 'While we don't want to erase all individuality, courts remain an inherently conservative environment, and it is important to minimise anything that might distract or invite unnecessary judgment. In that sense, presentation is part of the broader strategy,' she says.
Limits of Fashion in Court
Of course, the power of dress has limits. Harvey Weinstein's transformation from a power broker in sharp black suits to using a walker in understated blues did not save him from a sexual assault conviction. Similarly, the Bling Ring's Louboutins did not rescue them from a guilty verdict for burglary. These cases illustrate that while clothing can influence perception, it cannot override overwhelming evidence.
Memorable Courtroom Ensembles
Gwyneth Paltrow
When retiree Terry Sanderson sued Gwyneth Paltrow over a ski collision, her outfits became some of the most highly publicised courtroom looks. She wore neutral cashmere, soft suiting, and lug-sole boots, aligning with her everyday style rather than opting for stiff tailoring. This signalled ease and confidence, culminating in her final display of composure: 'I wish you well,' she said to Sanderson upon her victory.
Lindy Chamberlain
In 1982, Lindy Chamberlain was wrongly convicted of murdering her daughter after a jury dismissed claims that a dingo took her baby. Her wardrobe attracted judgment independent of the evidence; she was criticised as 'overdressed' and 'disrespectful' for wearing sundresses to court in 36°C heat. Chamberlain later reflected, 'It didn't matter what you did, you were wrong,' recalling advice to wear light wool suits despite the heat. Turnbull notes, 'The Chamberlain case is a powerful example of how appearance can be weaponised. It speaks to a broader issue where perception had already taken hold, and appearance simply became another lens through which she was judged.'
Gisèle Pelicot
Gisèle Pelicot's lawyer, Stéphane Babonneau, aptly said, 'Every woman who has had to endure what [Pelicot] had to endure and takes the stand knows she is going to be observed, not just according to what she says, but how she looks.' During the harrowing four-month rape trial of her ex-husband and 50 other men, Pelicot wore a silk scarf with a print by Manyjilyjarra artist Mulyatingki Marney, given to her by the Australian Older Women's Network as a gesture of solidarity. This detail imbued her appearance with a force that transcended the courtroom, becoming a broader symbol of heroism.
Antoinette Lattouf
In her book Women Who Win, journalist Antoinette Lattouf reflects on dressing for her unfair dismissal trial against the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Many garments were sourced from designers and retailers with ties to Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, and Iran. 'They dressed me for battle, turning my wardrobe into armour,' she writes. On judgment day, she wore all black as a 'sombre tribute to the ABC's reputational funeral,' joking that if the ABC was 'collapsing,' the least she could do was 'turn up properly attired to its wake.'
Elizabeth Holmes
Elizabeth Holmes underwent an entire image reinvention when being tried for fraud, transforming from a black turtlenecked founder to a besuited milquetoast. Turnbull observes, 'Holmes' shift in appearance during her trial illustrates how deliberately curated courtroom presentation can be. Moving away from her recognisable public persona to a more subdued, conventional look was clearly strategic.'
Anna Sorokin (née Delvey)
Anna Sorokin's style during her larceny trial was a lesson in using clothing to make friends and influence people. She hired a stylist for some courtroom ensembles, reportedly refusing to wear the civilian clothes provided by Rikers Island Prison, delaying proceedings. Her outfits diverted attention from the charges to her Celine glasses.
Kirsha Kaechele
In 2024, Tasmania's Museum of Old and New Art (Mona) won its supreme court appeal to continue barring men from entering its Ladies Lounge installation. Artist Kirsha Kaechele attended hearings in prim navy tailoring and pearls, accompanied by an all-female legal team in complementary looks. 'Kaechele's presentation sits somewhere between theatre and strategy,' says Turnbull. 'Sometimes the battle is won both in and out of the courtroom.'
Chloe Welling is a writer with a background in commercial litigation.
