Rebel Wilson’s courtroom makeover demonstrates why style matters on the stand. The Pitch Perfect star is being sued for defamation by actor Charlotte MacInnes, and during the trial, Wilson has arrived in court wearing various iterations of white button-down shirts beneath neutral knitwear or suiting, paired with cropped black trousers and heels. This demure, court-appropriate uniform mirrors the style she adopted during her 2010s trial against Bauer Media, starkly contrasting with her usual glittery, vivacious fashion.
Wilson is not the first high-profile respondent to change her wardrobe for court. While appearance should not materially affect a case’s outcome, how one presents at trial can carry real consequences. Emma Turnbull, an accredited criminal law specialist and director of Emma Turnbull Lawyers in Sydney, explains: “Jurors bring their own life experiences and unconscious biases. Despite clear directions, people tend to judge quickly and often harshly.” Appearance signals power, threat, or virtue before words can, and Turnbull notes that a client’s appearance is a known, controllable factor that defence lawyers take seriously.
Fashion can also provide plaintiffs an opportunity for expression when speech is constrained. Kim Kardashian ignored prosecutors’ advice to “tone down” her look when testifying against those who robbed her in Paris, appearing dripping in diamonds. “They’re not gonna take my power,” she said. Similarly, Gisèle Pelicot wore a silk scarf printed with artwork by Martu woman Mulyatingki Marney during her harrowing rape trial, a symbol of solidarity that imbued her appearance with force beyond the courtroom.
Turnbull advises clients 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. It is important to minimise anything that might distract or invite unnecessary judgment.” However, the power of dress has limits: Harvey Weinstein’s shift from sharp black suits to subdued blues did not prevent his sexual assault conviction, nor did the Bling Ring’s Louboutins save them from burglary charges.
Memorable Courtroom Ensembles
Gwyneth Paltrow
When Terry Sanderson sued Gwyneth Paltrow over a ski collision, her neutral cashmere, soft suiting, and lug-sole boots became some of the most publicised courtroom looks. Rather than stiff tailoring, she dressed in alignment with her everyday style, signalling ease and composure. Her final line to Sanderson upon victory: “I wish you well.”
Lindy Chamberlain
In 1982, Lindy Chamberlain was wrongly convicted of murdering her daughter after a jury dismissed claims that a dingo took her baby. She was criticised as “overdressed” and “disrespectful” for wearing sundresses to court in 36°C heat. Turnbull says, “The Chamberlain case is a powerful example of how appearance can be weaponised.”
Gisèle Pelicot
Pelicot’s lawyer noted that every woman taking the stand knows she will be observed not just for what she says, but how she looks. Pelicot’s style was unmistakably her own during the four-month rape trial, including a silk scarf from the Australian Older Women’s Network, 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 ABC. Many garments were sourced from designers 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.”
Elizabeth Holmes
Holmes underwent an image reinvention during her fraud trial, transforming from black turtlenecked founder to besuited milquetoast. Turnbull says, “Moving away from her recognisable public persona to a more subdued, conventional look was clearly strategic.”
Anna Sorokin (née Delvey)
Sorokin hired a stylist for courtroom ensembles during her larceny trial, reportedly refusing to wear civilian clothes from Rikers Island. Her outfits diverted attention towards her Celine glasses, delaying proceedings.
Kirsha Kaechele
Artist Kirsha Kaechele attended hearings for Mona’s Ladies Lounge installation in prim navy tailoring and pearls, accompanied by an all-female legal team in complementary looks. Turnbull notes, “Kaechele’s presentation sits somewhere between theatre and strategy. Sometimes the battle is won both in and out of the courtroom.”
Chloe Welling is a writer with a background in commercial litigation.
