Are there other kinds of of attorneys other than those that practice law?
Sure – for example the attorney exercising a power of attorney for someone.
An attorney is someone who acts for someone else. The attorney exercising a power of attorney for some else is acting on behalf of that person. The attorney presenting a client’w case to the court is acting on behalf of that person. It is the nature of acting on behalf of someone that is key to being an attorney, not whether a person is a lawyer or not.
An attorney is like an agent – a person [potentially any person] acting in behalf of another.
Just as anyone can act as agent for someone else, e.g., an adult son renting out his mother’s property to tenants in her behalf while she either winters in Florida or recuperates in an extended care facility … but only certain people function professionally as real estate agents — so, too, can anyone act as attorney for another with a power of attorney document, but only lawyers trained in the law and admitted to the bar may function professionally to give legal advice for monetary consideration, or represent their clients for a fee in court.
The profession is not “attorney” but “lawyer” – what lawyers do is serve as people’s attorneys at law. “Attorney” doesn’t describe the business but the relationship.
Just to add the terminology to what **Muffin **and **Polycarp **posted: if you have someone’s power of attorney, you are his or her “attorney-in-fact.”
FYI, Legal Lad of the Quick and Dirty Tips podcasts refers to someone with your power of attorney as an “attorney in fact.” That may be the only distinguished used of “attorney-xxx-xxx”.
My First Simulpost!!! Whooohoo!!
I once saw a law office that said Joe Blow Attorney at Law and Admiralty. It was at the beach. I assumed it meant he knew a lot about maritime laws but maybe he had an extra degree or training in maritime law.
Admiralty courts are different creatures from the law courts.
So, if we were to use the same construction, a Personal Shopper could be termed “Attorney at Commerce”? A meal planner, “Attorney at Gustatory Arts”? A laundromat employee, “Attorney at Laundry”? 
I think I speak for us all when I say…
- Ace309, attorney-at-message-board
That’s what happened to the term “engineer” – domestic engineer, sanitary engineer, etc.
Note that in Canada (and, I presume, other Commonwealth countries), there is another use of “-at-law” and that is a “student-at-law” - a person who has obtained their law degree and is now doing their articles with a more senior lawyer, prior to being called to the bar. A “law student” is anyone who is taking legal training, but a “student-at-law” is the most junior member of the profession.
Along the same lines, English and Irish law formerly had an elite form of barrister termed the Serjeant-at-law – properly spelled, unlike the military NCO rank, with a J rather than a G. Serjeants-at-law were the sole barristers admitted to plead at certain courts, a monopoly they jealously guarded until the 19h Century.
Along the same lines of “entities-at-law,” note also that some attorneys choose to refer to themselves as Counselors-at-law or Attorneys-and-Counselors-at- Law. There’s no specific distinction except ego involved in using this formulary, though for some it is apparently intended to suggest a focus on providing legal counsel.
Nope, it is a special branch of the law that is conducted in regular federal courts by lawyers who have hopefully studied admiralty law. Much like torts law is different from contracts law. Admiralty law is what law on navigable waterways is. Admiralty law - Wikipedia
I believe this is technically accurate, but essentially misleading. Admiralty courts don’t exist separately from courts of law in the U.S. anymore, but they were traditionally a different system of courts with different personnel (as was Chancery). Even though that distinction has been elided over time, it’s not merely a branch of law like torts or family law, but a theoretically separate court system. Most importantly, even today the rules of procedure for a court sitting in admiralty is different than for one sitting at law, which can have a big effect on the outcome. (For instance – AFAIK, there’s no jury in admiralty.)
–Cliffy
I don’t know about the UK, but I know for a fact that in the US, admiralty cases are handled in federal district court by federal district judges and plain old lawyers under US admiralty law. So what I stated was not only technically accurate, but it was essentially accurate and not misleading at all in any way in the US for quite some time. What you are saying is that the Courts have been combined and there are no juries and some separate procedure rules, which is correct. This is like the difference in probate court in state courts. Same judges, different rules.
Yeah, they have gold fringe on their courtroom flags.
::d&r::
I think that another now-defunct distinction is that in merry olde England there used to be equity courts that were distinct from the law courts, so some people were only attorneys-at-equity.
And for ablative cases (as opposed to admiralty cases) we have mothers-in-law.
More seriously, I expect that mother-in-law, father-in-law etc. might have arisen out of canon law concerning affinity.