What is fashion law?

Before I start posting substantive articles, I thought it is worth discussing what "fashion law" is, or, at least, what my idea of fashion law looks like. Fordham Law is one of the few law schools that offer the fashion law curriculum. The curriculum runs the gamut from intellectual property to civil rights (Yes, civil rights! The sartorial world, with its huge workforce, cannot be free from the Title VII anti-discrimination federal laws). This expansive coverage tells me that there are many aspects in fashion, aside from its creative part, that need to be addressed in legal terms. At the same time, I have met a fair number of people who think fashion law as a field of legal study is nothing more than putting together a bit of everything. And, to be fair, I find their comment, to some extent, valid. From their perspective, fashion law simply repackages the pre-existing legal areas under the larger umbrella of fashion and caters to certain industry-specific needs.

However, I have a genuine belief that fashion law will be a thing of its own in coming years, if not decades. In fact, big law firms such as Foley & Lardner LLP have fashion law practice groups. (If it's not yet, I will dedicate my career into making it one!) As my law school study progresses, I am constantly fascinated by the distinctive particularities of the fashion industry that have totally escaped my attention. Did you know, for one, that the 2020 resort collection was well into its manufacturing stage last fall? What would happen, amid the COVID-19 crisis, if manufacturers cannot deliver items on contractually promised terms? Even worse, what if financially distressed fashion houses cannot pay the amount due to those manufacturers? As you all know, fashion operates on a different calendar. Its forward-looking cycle can be a potential source of legal disputes.

In the first year, all law school students wrap their heads around thick textbooks to understand legal doctrines. In a simpler world, every legal ruling could be based on the "facts + doctrine = result" formula. However, judges are not robots. They wear robes and sit on the bench to administer justice. Every legal doctrine does not exist in vacuum, and each has broader policy concerns behind its birth. Moreover, a web of legal doctrines evolve to accommodate the intricacies of modern reality that were unthinkable a few year ago. Fashion, too, has its own developing complexities that warrant a doctrinal revision if necessary.

Some may then wonder why there isn't strong buzz in popular conversations, let alone in the legal circle. My own take is that there haven't been uniquely fashion-related high-profile cases on appellate-level courts and, surely, the Supreme Court. The much talked-about Star Athletica Supreme Court decision was a welcome anomaly in that regard. Legal doctrines gain nuances because people bring lawsuits and litigate them in courts. Appellate-level courts are where such "doctrine-sharpening" process mostly takes place because appellate court judges are in a position to resolve the doctrinal divide among jurisdictions. (This does not mean, by any means, district court judges are not engaged in this process. As courts of first instance, district courts play an indispensable role in our judicial system!)

So are you now pumped up for exploring these uncharted waters? Are you on deck with me?

P.S.
As it will be the case for every post, I am open to debate if we have points of disagreement. Feel free to share your frank opinions. It can be as simple as a stylistic comment. That free exchange of ideas will surely broaden our perspectives and enrich our collective experience.

I will continually pray for the health of you and your loved ones. Love wins, as Cuomo succinctly put it.

Comments

Trending