As I have shared in two prior posts, I had the privilege of sitting down with the menswear authority, Alan Flusser, in his comfortable office inside his custom tailor shop in Manhattan, to hear his point of view on the status of men’s style. This being a legal blog, the conversation inevitably came around to what a lawyer should wear, and here again, Mr. Flusser was both precise and definite:
“I went to a closing on an apartment, and counsel for the other party showed up in a polo shirt and khakis. I’d never met him before, and I would hardly recommend that you come in looking like that, trying to show you have the know-how and authority to oversee a transaction well north of a million dollars. But that is the lay of the land today.”
“Is that advice for everyone or are you pointing to the legal profession when you say that?” I asked.
“Everybody could benefit from learning some of the fundamentals that go into putting together the basic elements of style in a way that makes the right impression. That is particularly true for a lawyer, who has to explain important things to people in a convincing manner. The kind of clothes he wears and—just as important—the way he wears those clothes can go a long way in terms of helping him present his case to his opponents, to a judge, and, indeed, to his clients. There’s a certain confidence that can be projected by a person who knows how to wear clothes correctly.”
“Are you arguing for tradition?” I asked. “When I was a boy, we were told that, by the time you and I would be sitting here, everyone would be dressed in something like the outfits on the original Star Trek series.
Mr. Flusser smiled. “I worked for Pierre Cardin in the 70s.” That was a name from my sartorial past. I recalled that the three first suits I bought as an adult, while then in college, bore the Pierre Cardin label. They were made in Latin America and had lapels wide enough to cause me to take flight if the winds were right—but such were the times. “Pierre Cardin was one of these very avant-garde designers,” continued Mr. Flusser, “who said that, by the turn of this century, everyone would be wearing jumpsuits to go to the moon. Since then, people have been attempting to uproot, upend or debunk the necessity for wearing a suit, dress shirt and tie, trying to replace that with something else. Look around. As far I see, that that’s been a complete failure.”
Which is to say, it is a lot harder for you to look inconsequential in a suit, dress shirt and necktie even if not entirely spot on, than in a polo shirt and khakis, even if done not half-bad. Just the same, as Mr. Flusser next observed, once you commit to making the effort, you should commit as well to making sure it succeeds: “Whatever you do, the question is, why go to all the trouble to get gussied up in this if it takes no more effort to put on clothing that fits and is correctly proportioned for you?”
I asked if there is a good role model who shows lawyers how to do it just right. That turned out to be another easy question:
“I have been writing about it for decades, but very few men know how to tie a tie and put it up into a collar and have it come out looking as good as it could—that is, the difference between looking powerful or not—or possibly making you look weaker. Where can you learn that? You either have to see it on another man or you have someone in the public eye espousing this kind of dress. If I had a moment to ask any question of former President Barack Obama, I would probably first ask him, ‘How did you learn to wear shirts that have the exact and perfect collar for someone of your size and height and face shape, and how did you learn to tie the necktie to go up into that and to make that presentation as perfect as it has ever been on any president?’ Clearly, somebody taught him that at some point because you don’t usually pick that up as a community organizer.”
In short, to my colleagues at the bar: your legal knowledge, skills and personality may take you far, but pick up Mr. Flusser’s books, see him personally, or hunt down someone else who knows how and is ready to show you the way. That may not carry the day for you in contract negotiations or in a summation before the jury—but it will almost certainly offer you just a bit more of an advantage than you otherwise have had. And no one who seriously wishes to make it in this difficult profession should lightly pass up such an opportunity.
Credit: Alan Behr
We would like to thank Alan Flusser for his gracious participation in our three-part series on fashion, style and the industry’s influence on today’s design aesthetic. | https://alanflusser.com/
See post…”Alan Flusser – Part 1: A Question of Balance”
I was discussing the history of style with Alan Flusser in his office on East 48th Street in Manhattan, a convivial nook that shares the floor with his showroom and workroom. I turned to a topic about which I knew, from Mr. Flusser’s informative writings, that he had much to say: how it is that the typical American businessman or professional man used to look so natty and how is it that his descendants came to look—rather as they now do.
“First of all,” Mr. Flusser told me, “in between the wars, you had a situation in which a lot of people couldn’t afford clothes. It was the Depression. On the other side of it, there were still a lot of wealthy people. And there was also Hollywood, and in Hollywood at the time, when moviemaking was at its zenith of popularity, you had great male leading actors whose job it was to project Hollywood glamour, not just on screen but in their social lives.”
Anyone so young as to wonder if celebrity worship started with iPhone apps and social media should read a good history of American popular culture to know what Mr. Flusser means. My mother, a spiritual child of the Golden Age of Hollywood, grew up hoping to copy every button and bow on her favorite stars and still sees actors as transcendent personalities. For men, however, as Mr. Flusser went on to note, the catalyst was a “confluence of male sartorial role models,” from British aristocrats, politicians and businessmen to those movie stars. Men were taking an interest in dressing well, in part due to those examples, which were regularly offered in the new media of film, picture magazines and, later, television.
“In Hollywood at the time,” continued Mr. Flusser,” you had about twenty men who individually set their own kind of style” and thereby marked the path for those millions interested in following. He noted in particular Cary Grant and Fred Astaire. “In terms of learning how to dress, there developed between the two world wars the kind of clothing that we wear today, soft clothing that you could move in comfortably—lounge clothing, it was called—not stiff and Victorian.” Indeed, although the modern business suit’s origins can be traced back to nineteenth-century military uniforms, it was the resulting lounge suit of British gentlemen that evolved into the contemporary international business suit. (If you do not believe that, put on a suit of the London cut, turn up the collar and pull the lapels toward each other. You will look just a bit like the Duke of Wellington.)
That is all well and good, but who in the public eye right now would a young man seek to emulate? Attention, Millennials, this one is for you: “I would be hard-pressed to come up with a single person,” said Mr. Flusser, a note of frustration overtaking what had been an assertive tone. He suggested George Clooney, who is not in his first youth, of course, but did not feel comfortable naming anyone else in entertainment.
As I now knew was his method, Mr. Flusser offered history: “In the 1960s, you had the Peacock Revolution. There was a rebellion against ‘the Establishment’ and the more traditional dress that people associated with their parents. From about 1968 until the 1980s, there was a void of good guidance on how men should dress. If you take the generation after that, you get pretty close to where we are today, and you find two complete generations of men who never had the benefit of having any kind of solid information on the elements of stylish dressing. By then, you had had a complete inversion. Instead of style being handed down from above, it bubbled up from below—from the street.” And street wear, as we know, makes its mark by aspirating toward a state of cool—a hard state to reach and an even harder one to maintain.
Where does that leave us now? “It’s a very confusing period of time in terms of trying to learn how to dress and come to terms with what you know about how to present yourself,” concluded Mr. Flusser. True enough, but at least, because of our conversation, I had come to understand why that is so.
Credit: Alan Behr
See post…”Alan Flusser – Part 1: A Question of Balance”
“One of the principles that I teach is that clothes should lead the eye of the viewer to the face of the person wearing the clothes. That’s particularly important in the legal profession, where you do a lot of communicating.” Hardly had I started my conversation with Alan Flusser, who is one of the premier custom tailors on this side of the Atlantic, when I was the recipient of such good advice. I had come to Mr. Flusser’s shop, in midtown Manhattan, with a three-button jacket he had made for me so long ago that I had missed a fitting on the morning of 9/11 (for quite obvious reasons). Although it had been worn often, Mr. Flusser and his team had just returned the altered piece to me looking as if it had left the workroom for the first time. Not only had it been recut for my late-blooming athletic physique (I had at long last learned to sit less and to pump more iron), but shorter and now boasting a pinched-in waist, it was also quite au courant. A hidden benefit of quality custom-tailoring is economy: every off-the-rack garment I owned back then has long ago been sent away.
With that good start behind me, I joined Mr. Flusser in the office of his shop. Mr. Flusser sat in one of his guest chairs, appearing at ease in an open-collared shirt, unbuttoned jacket and casual shoes minus socks. With my notes spread in front of me, I probably looked to him like a defense lawyer trying to impress a trial judge. He continued: “What is closest to the face is the dress shirt collar. You should look at it as a painting and a frame—your head is the painting and you are trying to give it a frame that complements your face but doesn’t distract from it. The criteria for making the decisions about that—the size of your chin and the shape of your head, for example—are not changeable or subject to fashion. So if you discover what kind of dress shirt collar best presents your face, and build on that, what you figure out will stay with you for the rest of your life.”
When I asked what was the most common collar mistake, his answer was immediate: “Most men wear dress shirt collars that are too small for their faces. If you are 5’10” or above, the likelihood is that you will be wearing a dress shirt that does not sit tall enough on your neck. Instead, the dress shirt decorates the bottom half of your neck, and if you add a necktie, it will look like a dead fish hanging around your neck. That has nothing to do with fashion. It only has to do with your own physiology. And it’s not about knowing how much you should pay for something. It costs no more to wear a shirt with a collar that is appropriate for you than not. If you don’t wish to spend a lot of money, but you understand what works for you, it will look just fine. All of this is just about knowledge.”
Feeling my moment of reckoning had come, I noted the obvious: that I have a large head and a wrestler’s neck. My shirt collar was tall enough, it turned out—but that was just the start of the conversation. Before I knew it, Mr. Flusser had unfastened my tie in order to relieve it of the Windsor knot I have been using since I was a first-year associate and retied it with a more rakish four in hand. “Much better,” he said, and then he replaced my machine-finished pocket square with a proper French-made, hand-rolled model. It all came together just so. And that is what style is really about: helping you look your best, not the best of someone seen in a magazine or on a social media page.
Credit: Alan Behr
Alan Flusser maintains his custom atelier at 3 East 48th Street in New York City. He is the author of “Dressing the Man: Mastering the Art of Permanent Fashion” and other works about men’s style. (www.alanflusser.com)
Michael S. Fischman, Partner Phillips Nizer LLP
In many states, such as New York, a covenant of good faith and fair dealing is implied in every contract and prevents the trademark owner from (ab)using the right of sole discretion in a manner that would deny the manufacturer the benefits of the contract. An example of the interplay of the covenant of good faith and “sole discretion” rights can be found in a 2017 case involving a dispute between Elie Tahari Ltd. (“Tahari”) and one of its licensees, Parigi Group Ltd. (“Parigi”). As reported in public filings, Tahari and Parigi were parties to a license agreement by which Parigi was to produce and sell a line of children’s clothing under the ELIE TAHARI trademark, commencing with the spring/summer 2015 season. Pursuant to the detailed procedures of the license agreement, Tahari gave Parigi its approval, in writing, for styles that it accepted for the first collection and those styles were placed into production.
Thereafter, during a visit to the Parigi showroom, the head of Tahari and its chief designer, Elie Tahari, announced that he was revoking Tahari’s approval of each and every style that was previously approved by the Tahari personnel. Tahari, the company, claimed that it had the right to force Parigi to pull the entire collection from the showroom (just as it was to be offered for sale to retailers) under a provision of the license agreement that allowed it to “revoke its approval of Licensed Products in the event that Licensor [Tahari] determines, in its sole discretion, that any such prior approved item has become outdated or the durability or design of such prior approved item no longer meets the highest standards of style, appearance, distinctiveness and quality as to conform to the standards and specifications established by Licensor” (emphasis suppled).
The parties each claimed that the other breached the license agreement. Parigi refused to produce further products under the Tahari license and risk losing its investment in yet another collection. Tahari claimed that Parigi was obligated to continue under the license agreement, design new product and pay the minimum royalties regardless of whether Tahari would approve it unconditionally or not. Tahari ultimately commenced an action against Parigi alleging that licensee’s repudiation of the agreement constituted a material breach and that it was owed $1,000,000 for royalty payments and guarantees. Parigi filed its own claim alleging that Tahari materially breached the agreement and its duty of good faith and fair dealing.
The panel of three arbitrators hearing the dispute concluded that, notwithstanding the broad approval rights of Tahari under the contract, including Tahari’s right in its “sole discretion” to revoke prior approval of product, “the Agreement’s fundamental purpose was entirely frustrated by Tahari’s conduct, and therefore … Parigi was entitled to terminate based on Tahari’s material breach of the Agreement.” The panel concluded that Tahari could not collect minimum royalties because it had prevented Parigi from making any sales against which royalties could be earned. In other words, Tahari had breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing that is implicit in every contract.
The covenant of good faith and fair dealing “encompasses any promises which a reasonable person … would be justified in understanding was included in the parties’ agreement.”  A party breaches its duty of good faith and fair dealing when it “acts in a manner that, although not expressly forbidden by any contractual provision, would deprive the other party of the right to receive the benefits under their agreement.” Tahari breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by revoking its explicit approval of each and every product in an entire seasonal collection, all of which products it had approved months earlier.
Although an extreme case in the suddenness and timing of Tahari’s announcement of its decision to revoke its earlier approval and in the consequences of doing so, the Tahari-Parigi dispute underscores the importance of considering the impact of “sole discretion” decisions. There is nothing really “sole” about a contract with another party.
 See In The Matter Of The Arbitration Of Certain Controversies Between Parigi Group Ltd. v. Elie Tahari, Ltd. (656041/2017). Parigi was represented in the matter by Alan Behr and Michael Fischman of Phillips Nizer LLP.
 ARB Upstate Commc’ns LLC v. R.J. Reuter, L.L.C., 93 A.D.3d 929, 934 (3d Dep’t 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citation omitted).
 Id. (citation omitted). See also, Jaffe v. Paramount Commc’ns, 222 A.D.2d 17, 22-23 (1st Dep’t 1996) (“[the] covenant of good faith and fair dealing … is breached when a party to a contract acts in a manner that, although not expressly forbidden by any contractual provision, would deprive the other party of the right to receive the benefits under their agreement.”); Legend Autorama, Ltd. v. Audi of Am., Inc., 100 A.D.3d 714, 716 (2d Dep’t 2012) (“The covenant embraces a pledge that ‘neither party shall do anything which will have the effect of destroying or injuring the right of the other party to receive the fruits of the contract.’”)(quoting, Dalton v. Educ. Testing Serv., 87 N.Y.2d 384, 389 (1995)); Richbell Info. Servs. v. Jupiter Partners, 309 A.D.2d 288, 302 (1st Dep’t 2003)(even an explicitly discretionary contract right may not be exercised in bad faith so as to frustrate the other party’s right to the benefit under the agreement).
Alan Behr, Phillips Nizer Partner and Fashion Practice Chair
Fashion is about nothing if not what comes next, and we are already being questioned at the firm about what are the best options for when this terrible scourge at last subsides and we can go to work without fear for the health of ourselves, friends, coworkers and families. In other words, what will we do when normalcy returns, and will things ever be normal, at least in the way we once saw it, again?
The first point to note is that COVID-19 will likely accelerate the trend, moving along an ascending line throughout the century, of the replacement of tangible experience with digital access. The world went to remote working and learning because it could. We have to remember that, a generation ago, those options were not all but universally available to those who could benefit from them. Online buying now being nearly the only way to get what you need, we expect that the trend toward shopping online will only continue. And because online buying is dominated by a handful of retailers–starting with Amazon–the pressure to limit their market dominance or even to break them up will also likely grow.
Another trend, one that is less-often written about but also significant, is that electronics have helped bring down the cost of made-to-measure and other forms of garment customization. You can (as I have) pick a fabric online, inform your shirt maker and have it delivered from, depending on price point and style, Britain, Italy or China at what has increasingly become a smaller marginal cost over off-the rack. We can expect that trend to continue as well.
Those are conveniences that benefit retail customers, but retailers and, to put a human face on it, the people who work for retailers, will have different lives. It is a different kind of employment from helping a customer who comes into your shop to buy her wedding dress to working at the computer five states away that takes the order and verifies with the warehouse that the piece is in stock and ready for shipment. There are ample satisfactions offered by the latter job, but they are not quite the same as seeing the bride leave the shop in the dress that you helped assure will be right for her.
For retailers, integrating their online and their physical presence will likely grow only more challenging–because customers will expect a seamless experience. That means a commitment of financial and human resources immediately following a sustained moment of financial terror. It is that part of it that we expect to focus on with our clients: helping them adjust by helping rework their existing agreements to fit the new, more complex and layered intake and distribution system that has gone by the name of “omni-channel” and may now simply be called business as usual. Real estate attorneys will be needed to help with that, along with attorneys able to assist with new sourcing and distribution relationships, trademark attorneys will need to make the necessary filings to protect marks for a broader range of services given in connection with sales and purchases and, as often happens after a downturn, litigators will be needed to help work through the disputes that arise whenever markets decline.
It may seem premature now, but it is never too early to plan and, while you are discussing with your attorney how to renegotiate the lease and work out a deal with the unions following layoffs, to consider what to do when, as they will, things again go right for the world
Alan Behr, Phillips Nizer LLP Partner and Fashion Practice Chair
There have been unique challenges for retailing since not long after Amazon.com first went live, but a worldwide disruption of supply chains and temporary but extended closures at points of sale is outside of all prior international experience. True, there had been speculation about such things one day happening, but it was almost always voiced in the context of war or terrorism, not disease. So no one should be surprised that contingency plans were not made to handle massive disruptions due to a microscopic, life-threatening menace. Similarly, no one with whom a retailer might now seek to renegotiate an existing agreement or otherwise alter a working relationship can claim not to understand the retailer’s problems or to insist that he or she knew better.
True, all consumer-facing businesses have similar challenges, but fashion and accessories retailing is unique in one key respect. If you own a restaurant and are forced to shut or to confine yourself to takeout and deliveries, the inventory you will lose will be, in the main, whatever was stocked for a few days at most. Fashion retailing, on the other hand, is a seasonal business, and if the store is forced—by order or by conscience—to shut for any length of time, imprisoned within it are this season’s goods—things that have to be sold or otherwise cleared out before the next season begins. The retailer may have a plan that indicates at each point along the way when each item will be discounted and by how much, but none of that is particularly useful with the doors shut. And if capital is an issue, as it is for many of us, if you cannot sell what you bought for spring/summer, it could be hard, if not impossible, to pay for what is scheduled to come in starting in late summer for fall/winter. And the incoming merchandise that, if you can pay for it and sell it in the ordinary course, will help get you out of this hole—as long as disrupted supply chains (notably from China and Italy) do not force you to tear up those plans as well. Of course, there is the no-less-critical problem about idle staff, particularly what to do about salespeople who live largely or wholly off commissions.
Modifying Shakespeare’s famous remark in a more pro-social way: in times like this, the first thing we do is call the lawyers. That is because a unified plan, formed around potential legal strategies and mindful of legal risks, is the best way to handle any multi-tiered crisis. Those tiers include the need to address, and seek to work out compromises for, vendor contracts, union contracts, employee relations, leases, insurance policies, utilities and maintenance agreements, government relations and public relations. Just as the business solution is not as simple as throwing all your inventory online and hoping for the best, a legal solution is not something that can be tossed out as a quick fix. Speak to counsel now, before the problems become financially daunting, and work out a plan that prioritizes your concerns and examines your potential responses based on best-case and worst-case scenarios. Are employees your first concern? Are they asking what personal time off means in the context of mandatory leave? That is for review with labor counsel now, we would suggest, not later. The landlord wants assurances that the rent will be paid? In fact, even if he or she has not yet asked, if that appears to be a challenge, the question should be discussed in advance with real estate counsel. And so on down the list. If ever there were a time when the ounce of prevention is the worth that pound of cure, we have all reached it now.