Following suit

A few years ago wearing casual clothes at work was frowned upon while smoking was perfectly acceptable.

Jeremy Fleming asks why working practices have changed so much

Ten years ago, the big City law firms did not have to think about what their staff should wear.

It was pretty obvious: dark suits, black shoes, sober ties and well-starched shirts (not too loud).

Neither were women's clothes such an issue; at the time, they raised enough eyebrows by working in the City at all to start thinking about raising their hemlines or - heaven forbid - wearing trousers.These employees could also have expected to smoke relatively freely in the office.But the past five years have changed the face of British dress policies, and the cigarette is on the way to being permanently stubbed out of office life.

Berwin Leighton is the latest City firm to embrace the idea of dressing down on Fridays, while it plans to extend the scheme to the whole week over the summer.In some ways these developments reflect the cliche that what happens in the US comes over here a decade later.

Some US firms have even been holding fashion shows for staff to decide how best to dress-down.Certainly this must have influenced the London office of US firm Weil Gotshal & Manges.

'When we set up in late 1995, we wanted to show that we offered a difference from the magic circle firms from where we arrived,' says partner James Chesterman.The firm set off with a 'dress down Friday' policy.

Then one US partner noticed that New York lawyers were adopting a dress down summer, to make the Big Apple's heat easier to handle.

Weil Gotshal decided to follow suit, and abandon them for the summer in London.

But when September came round, it just seemed stupid to go back to a more formal environment', says Mr Chesterman.He keeps his suits in the office, and acknowledges that 'there are some weeks when I'm slipping into my suit for business meetings every day', but 'some weeks are completely office-bound, so it makes a big difference'.There are clearly benefits to a firm's image to be gained from a relaxed approach.

He adds: 'Everyone who comes for an interview at Weil Gotshal mentions the dress-down policy, and it's seen as a symbol that we are a modern firm.' But can these comfily-clad, new-age professionals smoke? 'Like so many other offices in the City now we have a non-smoking policy because the landlord of our office building prohibits it,' Mr Chesterman explains.

When the partners discussed the issue, he says they believed that 'the people who don't smoke would find it offensive.

People would prefer to have a system where people leave the building to smoke.

The smokers themselves probably wouldn't want to asphyxiate in a smoking room, with little ventilation and cigarette-stained walls'.If Weil Gotshal's policies seem particularly American, what of those British firms, like Garretts, who service US clients.

Spokeswoman Rachael Penfound says the firm has a non-smoking policy and the staff do dress-down.

'We have no formal written policy; our people just wear whatever they feel comfortable with.

Obviously if your clients are expecting to see you wearing a suit for a meeting, then a suit is the thing that's going to make you feel most comfortable.' She mentions that the new Internet clients frequently are more comfortable in casual meetings than in formal suits.

Nor does there seem to be any issue between the women and men as far as dress is concerned, Ms Penfound adds: 'We're such a young firm that our girls have always been able to wear trousers'.Garretts' senior partner Tony Williams says he himself mostly wears suits, because he has so many formal meetings with clients.

Those who dress-down tend to do so 'sensibly', he says.

'I think it will get to the stage where there will simply emerge a sort of informal uniform,' he says, referring to the fact that chinos are almost ubiquitous among dressed-down staff.

He does not think that the .com companies have necessarily started a dress revolution: 'Its more that companies in general are adopting a younger style that is less formal.'As a non-smoker himself in a non-smoking office, Mr Williams says he is not aware whether there is a special smoking room in the office.

But he points out that many larger organisations have adopted non-smoking policies not only because it creates a more pleasant working environment for the staff but also because of 'concerns over employment issues'.This point of view is supported by Karl Brookes, a project manager at Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), says his organisation is 'increasingly finding that employers are concerned about the risks of passive smoking, and are therefore doing blanket bans on smoking in the workplace'.

One of the issues, he says, is that employers - and lawyers are likely to be more careful than most - are concerned about their statutory duties under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.

The Act requires employers to do 'all in their reasonable skill and care to protect the health and safety of employers at work'.

If firms are uncertain about the dangers of passive smoking, they can always take the no-risk option of banning it altogether.

Mr Brooks adds that Health and Safety Executive guidance, which he anticipates will be issued shortly, will put additional pressure on firms to tighten up their non-smoking policies.Mr Brookes certainly gets fiery about smoke.

He acknowledges that it might be reasonable for pubs and casinos to cater for smokers, but the office is out of bounds.

Even smoking rooms, while they can 'play a transitional role in the implementation of a smoking ban', do not work, he adds, because: 'They create friction among staff.

'Look, there they go again for another ten minutes off work in the smoking room'.'At Clifford Chance there are no problems with staff friction.

Although the firm has a non-smoking policy, there is also what a spokesman describes as a 'well-ventilated smoking-room, fully equipped with working desks, so that staff can work while they smoke.'This 'third-way' approach is also reflected in the firm's dress policy.

A dress-down Friday was implemented earlier this year.

People have been asked to use their judgement in choosing how to dress, but guidelines have also been issued.

Jeans are not acceptable, nor are what the spokesman refers to as 'gym shoes'.

So, chinos and Hush Puppies seem to be the form at Clifford Chance.

The spokesman continues: 'The senior partner, Keith Clark, wore a pair of combats into the office one day, but he has not worn them since following the sartorial advice of colleagues.'He says women lawyers have started to wear trouser suits in the last three to five years, though he sees this a movement of fashion rather than women's lib.But if these are the experiences of City lawyers, what of in-house lawyers working in more trendy work places, like broadcasting? Andrew Brann, who was articled at City firm Herbert Smith, is now head of business affairs and company secretary at Channel Four, where his department is responsible for legal contracts.

'The dress spectrum is fairly wide,' he says, adding: 'If there's a formal meeting then naturally we'll wear a smart suit, sober tie, crisp shirt.' He says that part of dressing the part is gauging who you are meeting: 'If you're meeting more formal types - like sports rights editors - you dress very conservatively; if you've a meeting with producers, you can dress down.'If there is no meeting, there is no dress code for the office.

But does it become competitive, with people vying for the trendiest designer labels? 'We're not that self-conscious here', he replies.

But there is scope for the extrovert, Mr Bradley continues: 'My gay secretary is today wearing a pair of aluminium trousers by Sonia La Vie, which he describes as 14% aluminium with a 100% aluminium posterior panel, which are diaphanous when wet.'Mr Bradley's office is non-smoking, but he says that after six o'clock staff who are still working can light up.

He adds that when Lord Grade - famous for his Havana cigar smoking habit - was the director of Channel Four, the non-smoking rule was 'more honoured in the breach than the observance'.