Gwyneth Paltrow is known for her exquisite style in Hollywood, and that was evident during the eight-day ski crash trial in Park City, Utah. The 50-year-old Oscar-winner impressed the court with her subtle and sophisticated sense of style that included major designer labels and her own G. Label by Goop brand threads.
According to Cynthia Augello, partner at Warren Law Group, “every aspect of her behavior, attire and statements will be scrutinized.” Hence, it doesn’t come as a surprise that Paltrow decided to go for an understated look to impress the jury. Augello further adds that a litigant’s choice of clothing in court can unconsciously convey significant information about them, whether it is accurate or not. “Ms. Paltrow’s overall demeanor and unique aura leave an indelible impression on both the judge and the jury, and while her visage should not influence the outcome of the case, it undoubtedly plays a role in shaping perceptions,” Augello said.
During the trial, Paltrow mostly opted for a neutral color palette, impressively featuring outfits from her own G. Label by Goop brand. On the first day of trial, Paltrow wore a $1,200 pair of brown leather Celine boots, a green trench coat, and a cream-colored sweater from The Row, and aviator Ray-Ban sunglasses. On the second day, she walked into the courtroom wearing an ivory-colored cardigan from G. Label by Goop with a $25,000 gold Foundrae clip chain heart necklace. She also carried a vintage brown leather Celine purse. Paltrow testified in Prada on the fourth day, wearing a long navy skirt and a black, long-sleeved polo with Chelsea boots, which retail for $1,320.
Despite the likelihood of her clothing being costly, it is a widely accepted notion that her wardrobe would be expensive. Cynthia Augello mentioned that costly is an understatement for a few of Gwyneth’s getups. However, Gwyneth Paltrow didn’t dress down since it could create an impression of attempting to deceive the jury, which is generally not well-received. By appearing approachable and relatable, she doesn’t give the impression that she thinks of herself as more important than the jury.
Attorney Andres Munoz, partner with Romano Law, has noted that Paltrow “made a conscious effort to choose her attire.” Her choice of clothing and accessories may be to play to the local crowd or to underscore that she’s the “obviously famous defendant” that is being subjected to a money grab by the plaintiff. “Paltrow’s appearance during this trial is an unspoken tool of persuasion that absolutely falls within that latter category,” Munoz adds. However, juries are unpredictable, especially with strategies that may appear disingenuous. Sometimes it can backfire.
Criminal defense attorney Silva Megerditchian says that as long as the clothing is appropriate, it does not affect the verdict. “It is important to note when representing a celebrity, there is a difference between likability and credibility,” she notes. As we saw in the Johnny Depp trial, Mr. Depp came off extremely likable and relatable. Ms. Paltrow may not come off relatable or even likable, but most legal analysts would say her testimony was credible, and in a trial, nothing is more important than the credibility and believability of the witness, regardless of what they are wearing or how expensive their jewelry is.
In conclusion, Gwyneth Paltrow’s wardrobe for the ski crash trial may have been costly, but it gave the impression of her being approachable, relatable, and credible. Her understated presence also left an indelible impression on both the judge and the jury, shaping perceptions. Hence, it isn’t just about how, what, or where you wear it; it’s about the impression and the message you want to convey with your attire, especially during a trial that would impact your image, reputation, and finances.
