The term ‘lawyer’ has been in use at least since Middle English (as lauier), in a very logical and reasonable way, to refer to one who makes a living representing people in legal proceedings or in other legal activities.
But lawyers, these days, seem to prefer to be called ‘attorneys’. The word ‘attorney’, however, is much more general, referring to anyone who should have been given legal authority (perhaps even short-lived) to act for another on legal or official matters, wherein such role is referred to as ‘power of attorney’.
So lawyers, who generally want to be seen as something quite special, prefer to be called by a term that isn’t at all select. Was gibt?
And some of these same professionals seem to like to put the title ‘esquire’, in the form ‘Esq.’ after their names. Well, that’s apparently supposed to associate them with knights “in shining armor”; or at least, as my dictionary says, with a level of the English gentry a notch below knight. But does this title really do that? My dictionary only says the abbreviation is used “after a man’s full name, esp. an attorney.” So that makes all those female lawyers ‘against the dictionary’, and it even let’s me (of all people) in.
Lawyers are not attorneys – one word, cut short, and without any modifier.
If I engage a lawyer to represent me in a legal matter, he becomes my attorney. What he does professionally is to represent clients in legal issues, and so can call himself, without reference to any specific client(s), “attorney-at-law.” I.e., what he does professionally is to serve as his clients’ attorney in legal matters, so he is an attorney-at-law.
As for “Esq.” IMHO it is analogous to the titles for the other two classic professions. It is a title of respect to someone who has completed an onerous course of training to equip him/herself to serve the public (for a reasonable income, he/she hopes) in a professional capacity. So Dr. Jones gets out of his warm bed and drives to the hospital on a cold winter’s night because one of his patients has taken a turn for the worse, and deserves the respect of Dr. (Never mind that someone who has taken a Ph.D. in the history of Irish step dancing can use “Dr.” – one hopes they get told about their acquaintances’ hemorrhoids! ;)) And a clergyman attempts to function as an intermediary between his parishioners and the God they all believe in, and joins the Dr. at the hospital to comfort the ailing person and/or his/her family. And he deserves the Rev. prefixed to his (full) name. And the honest lawyer attempts to use his legal knowledge (and sometimes his influence in the tight circle of the Bar) to get the best possible deal for his client in a legal situation, and to advise his client of how to avoid getting into such a sticky situation if consulted beforehand.
There are of course exceptions. The physician who “limits his practice” to a few rich hypochondriacs deserves to have his tee shots end up in a water hazard. The clergyman who preaches hatred and bigotry gets no “Rev.” from me, and I am confident will receive his just reward. And the lawyer who takes a $500 fee to ignore his client until 30 minutes just before trial, and then plea bargain a clearly innocent client to six months in jail instead of three years deserves to be bitten by esquirrels. But they are the exception rather than the rule in my experience.
With all due respect, Ray, it’s clear you have a problem with lawyers as a profession, but not clear why. The half dozen on this board have always struck me as pretty decent members of their profession and nice people all around. I don’t think they deserve your ire. May I suggest you open a thread in MPSIMS or the Pit and describe how you got screwed over? Preferably without generalizing about how all lawyers are evil. And just maybe somebody on the board (maybe even one of those lowlife lawyers) might be able to help you get descrewed.