I’ve just received a communication (addressed to me personally, not a circular) from an American lawyer who has signed himself with the honourific “esquire”.
According to SDSTAFF Dianne (Esq.) in www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mesquire.html this is “thought pretentious”, but when I mentioned this with a laugh to an American friend was told it was quite normal and proper.
So what’s the scoop? Any American lawyers want to comment on this for free?
Here’s my guess: all American lawyers will say that it’s perfectly normal and proper, and all non-lawyers will call it pretentious.
What’s “normal and proper” changes with time, but if a lawyer sends a letter, and for some reason thinks that his tortured syntax is not a sufficient giveaway, he should sign as “Joe Litigiaphile, Attorney” (or “Attorney at Law,” or “Attorney for Jane Litigand”).
Business cards, even stationery, may reasonably be printed with “Esq.” on them, but signing your name with it is code for “insecure wanker.”
It’s become so normal for lawyers that I’ve even talked to one person who thought that “E.S.Q.” was a degree!
Pretentious or not, the practice of using Esq. to denote someone else’s status as a lawyer is universal in the US.
Communication between attorneys will almost always have Esq. in address portion of the letter. This is partly out of custom, but I think it’s mostly to signify that he or she is dealing in an official (rather than personal) capacity.
Communications from clients should have Esq. listed as well for the same reason, and to highlight the idea that the communication is privileged, although it would be a rare case where failure to do so would make any difference.
That being said, I don’t think the use of Esq. is any more or less pretentious than the use of M.D., because both connote specialized duties, licenses and knowledge. If we’re going to talk superfluous titles, let’s talk Ph.D. (ducks and covers from projectile attack by Ph.D. candidate in postmodern Latin American stamps).
As a preemptive strike, before anyone says M.D. is a degree and Esq. is flummery, it is important to note that there are plenty of people with law degrees (J.D. in the US; no idea anywhere else) who would not qualify as Esq., which usually signifies a practicing attorney. Most law professors, for example, would be out of place signing their names Esq.
TOM (not Esq. yet)
It’s not pretentious if one uses it to refer to another lawyer as others have stated. However, it is pretentious and snobbish to refer to one’s self as “Esquire,” at least IMHO. I, personally, prefer not to use it with my business cards, letterhead and signature. If some identification of my position is required in correspondence, I print my name as:
Zappo
Counsel
Name of government agency for which I work
underneath my signature.
What really frosts my shorts is the current vogue among some attorneys in my jurisdiction (Pennsylvania) to identify themselves as “Attorney John Smith” or call other lawyers “Attorney Jones” in correspondence and conversation. I think it’s pretentious and stupid.
When I answer the telephone and the person on the other end asks for “Attorney [my last name],” I’ve taken to responding, “Sorry, there’s no one named Attorney [my last name] here. You can speak to me, [my name]. I’m one of the attorneys on the legal staff here. Perhaps I can help you.”
But how did “Esq” become limited to lawyers? IIRC it was traditionally used as an honorific to indicate that someone was a landowner, or at least could otherwise claim gentlemanly status by heritage, or even by profession or education.
Quoth Tommygun:
Like “fake” doctors (MDs and JDs), a Ph.D. connotes specialized duties and knowledge. Why the distinction?
I’m just being a jerk, sure, but my point was that the outside world solicits the serves of an MD or a JD to due certain tasks that other’s cannot legally do/ don’t have the skill to do. The title itself conveys to the outside world the work that the holder may permissible perform.
A Ph.D., though, 1) doesn’t tell me much about what the holder of that degree does or knows and 2) doesn’t have a specific role to fill with that title. A Ph.D. in economics is going to bear little in terms of his educational make up with a Ph.D. in elementary education or art history, whereas there are 1000 different legal and medical specialities but everyone is going to have the same ground work and is expected to know a certain amount of general infor.
Ph.D. seems to be an indication of an honor, more than a sign to the outside world that the holder of this title may do XYZ task.
So, no offense. Again, I was just being a jerk. Many of the Ph.D.s I know are wickedly intelligent people who I have no problem calling doctor.
This is similar to a debate I once touched off about who was smarter as a profession, MDs or JDs. I irritated most of my friends greatly by claiming MDs were more intelligent overall.
TOM
Ah, I think I see what you’re saying. So, a title of “Doctor of Physics”, say, or “Doctor of Art History” would convey useful information about what it is that the holder actually does, whereas “Doctor of Philosophy” doesn’t tell you anything other than whatever it is a person does, they’ve studied hard to do it. I suppose I can see the rationale there.
I agree. This is a variant on a basic principle of polite usage, which is to not use your title when referring to yourself. You don’t say “I’m Mr. Smith”, you just say “I’m Smith”, or “John Smith”. Though in the case of an M.D. I would find it strange if he or she said their name was “Smith” and not “Dr. Smith”. Probably because it goes back to what’s been observed here about conveying apropriate information about what the person does.
IAAL, and I think the use of Esq. is pretentious. I have never used it, and I never intend to (unless I’m being sarcastic).
I have told new legal assistants who tried to put “Bearflag, Esq.” at the end of correspondence to PLEASE remove it and never use it again.
I have also asked them not to use Esq. when addressing letters to other lawyers. I don’t like to to ego-stroke unless I need to.
I know several other lawyers who feel the same way.
Also consider the fairly new trend towards more specific “Doctor of ________” titles. For example, I am a clinical psychologist who graduated with the degree “Doctor of Psychology” or “Psy.D.” (the trend in the field for distinguishing training focusing primarily on clinical practice as opposed to a Ph.D. who may be clinically trained but could also be exclusively or primarily academically focused) Also, docotrate level pharmacists can receive “Pharm.D.” degrees, a designation that suggests more clinical training.
So is it more or less pretentious for a Psy.D. or Pharm.D. to call themselves Dr. than a M.D.?
PhD = Phony Doctor 
Naw, Ph.D.s are the real doctors (for the most part, at least). Most Ph.D.s teach something, wheras most physicians don’t. The real doctors are the ones who are docting, not the ones who aren’t.
I find the Esq. title useful in my line of work. I’m a bike messenger, and if I pick up an envelope that simply says “John Doe, Esq. 1 State Street” I know there’s a better chance of finding John Doe listed on the building directory than if the “Esq.” had been left off. And you’d be amazed at how many people try to send things to large office buildings without bothering to mention what company the individual works for.
I asked Cecil this question by mail before I joined the board, but since it has come up, I’ll ask again.
I believe the US Constitution forbidds the use of nobility titles from other countries (I would guess Britain especially). Since Esquire is a title (albeit a lower one, not a peerage), should it not be forbiden that a US citizen would address himself or another US citizen in that manner? In that case, could I call myself lothos2002, earl of soandso, or H.R.H. lothos2002.
Sorry if this could be regarded as a highjack.
lothos2002
If I’m not mistaken, all that’s forbidden is for the US or state governments to give out such titles. I don’t recall there being anything in the Constitution that prohibits an individual from doing anything.
Article I, section 9, paragraph 8: “No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.”
Note: the original contains lots of capital letters in silly places.
So I can use any title I want to, as long as no one gave it to me.
You may already know this, but in Spanish “esq.” is an abbreviation of “esquina” (street corner, in English). So whenever I read someone stating him/herself as an “Esq.”, I usually follow the logical conclusion that his/her line of work is “hanging around by street corners”.
Sorry for the bad joke, but I can’t help it: I find titles as pompous and useless as the monarchies (be them political or academic) that issue them. The merit should come from the results of one’s work, not the paper that declares anyone “worthy”.