That’s about the gist of the question. When would it be legit to use the tag Esq behind your name?
I thought that “Esquire” means that you’re both an attorney and a self-important asshole.
According to Wikipedia I’m less than half wrong. Chances are they’re a lawyer, but it’s a certain indicator they’re a pompous prick.
Frequently (or occasionally), in the US it is used to indicate that one is a lawyer (or member of the bar, or something like that. I’m not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV) but 100% of lawyers to whom I am related by marriage have received at least one nameplate bearing the suffix “Esq”.
There’s no reason it can’t be both.
Staff report: How can I go about getting the title of “Esquire”?
Previous threads on topic:
I would have to suggest that the terms “raging douche,” “pompous prick” and “self-important asshole” might not be reserved solely for those who choose to use the “Esq.” tag as a signature feature. There are some people who post opinions who fall in the same categories, as a self-evident fact. :rolleyes:
For what it is worth, I never used the title in my real world signature, instructing my secretaries not to use it. I simply didn’t consider it necessary. It made its way into my online screen name at AOL because it was a very handy way of identifying my email address as related to the Douglas Young who was an attorney.
To summarize: according to the Staff Report, for proper usage, the OP could only use Esq. if he were an attorney or an English nobleman, otherwise he will have to content himself with “raging douche” after his name. Right?
Jeez, I sure hope my BiL isn’t a Doper. I didn’t mean to imply that all (or even a majority) of lawyers are raging douches, nor that my BiL specifically is in any way a douche (raging or otherwise) - the guy got some kind of recognition from the bar (or lawyers guild, or something) around here for the amount of pro bono work he does.
Bobotheoptimist, RD.
Sure, there’s more than one kind of self-important asshole. And someone who adopts a suffix that originally meant the son of a petty Nobleman and uses that suffix in a country that doesn’t have nobility is obviously putting on airs. Isn’t it sort of like calling myself “Baron” or “Count”?
I realize that doctors call themselves “Doctor” and clergy call themselves “reverend”. Maybe that’s more of the same silliness, but I don’t think either of those titles came from nobility and neither smack of pretension like ‘esquire’ does in the USA. In this country even our head of state is addressed as “Mr. President”, so I don’t think there’s really room for a rank above “Mr”.
Oh, and BTW, I’m glad to hear that you don’t self indentify IRL as someone who considers themselves superior to the common man. From what I’ve read of your postings on the board you seem like a decent and personable guy.
Actually, from an English point of view (which is all I’ve got) I’d have to say that usage 3 from the Online Dictionary definition in that report is the only one I’ve ever seen in actual use:
I’d have put all the other definitions as “archaic”.
For example, my bank used to send me correspondence addressed to “W. Not, Esq.” Presumably the feeling at the time was that it was slightly more formal and professional – I’m certainly neither a nobleman or a lawyer. It seems to fallen out of use around the time they started to get computers to write the letters.
Certainly this:
seems to me to describe English usage from at least the late 19th century through to the late 20th in formal correspondence – though here it wasn’t restricted to any particular profession.
Presumably American lawyers have, at some time, imported an English style of formal address.
Though for the life of me I can’t imagine why.
In the US, “Esq.” is for lawyers, but only when you’re writing to a lawyer. One never signs his own name as “Esq.” (Unless you’re a raging douche.)
I prefer the honorific “Colonel.”
For what’s it’s worth I’ve heard judges refer to lawyers as “Attorney X” in court.
Lawyers address each other with “Esquire” in correspondence. Writing a letter to a fellow attorney, you might address it: “John Doe, Esq., 123 Elm Street, Anytown, USA”
It is a little pompous to refer to yourself using that honorific, though.
And you really did once hear attorneys in my state address each other as “Colonel So-and-so.” That is very old-school, though.
Isn’t that referring to the lawyer’s activity as the agent of his or her client, not the state of being a lawyer itself?
First of all, thank-you for the compliment. It’s always nice to be appreciated. 
However, ignoring the inflammatory nature of words like “pompous prick” for a minute, let’s talk about the use of the abbreviation “Esq.” by some attorneys. I will point out that it is not the only similar honorific or quasi-title used in this country; many politicians and judges use the term “Honorable” in front of their names, or address others with that (indeed, in most American courtrooms, you are considered being disrespectful if you don’t use that honorific in addressing the judge, e.g.: “Your Honor”). There are other available examples.
As for “pretension” (by which I presume you mean affected importance or worth), most atttorneys use the term not because they want to “consider themselves superior to the common man” (even if they do), but rather because they simply see everyone else do it, especially within their firm, and, so, adopt the usage. When in Rome, yadda, yadda. In similar fashion, you will find them adopting “form” pleadings and petitions using language that is quite antiquated for no better reason than the fact it’s in the form file, and they cannot be bothered to update it (or are scared to try; lawyering often compels one to the conservative, on the theory that tried is true). I once pulled a form petition that started out with the assertion “Know all men by these presents that …” or something to that effect (I meant to save it, but time has whisked it to the great beyond). I sat down and rewrote the whole thing at once; shaking my head at the fact it had been used less than two years prior by someone else in the office. :eek:
Now, I know in this modern era that assertions like, “I’m a better man than you because of my education and status in life” are a bit frowned upon. And I will concede that almost anything an attorney does to set him/herself aside will draw some fire from the general public, on the general rule that attorney = undesirable person as a rule. However, our country started out with such distinctions (hell, you couldn’t VOTE if you weren’t a property owner or man of sufficient wealth), and if they persist in archaic signature lines and/or honorifics, it’s certainly understandable, if unfortunate. But I wouldn’t tag anyone who uses such a line without much thought, as a custom, a pompous prick or a raging douche (just how does a douche rage, anyway??).
can you elaborate? why would a lawyer be referred to as “Colonel”? 
As noted, anyone may be an “Esquire.” The style of “raging douche,” OTOH, may be properly assumed only pursuant to letters patent issued by the College of Douchebags and personally signed and sealed by the current Asshole King-at-Arms.
In a lot of southern states, people of local distinction, like newspaper editors or lawyers, tended to be given “Colonel” as an honorific.
I was never clear on the “why” of it. Just an old-timey Southern honorific, I think. (Think “Colonel Sanders.”)
It was just something used in personal conversation. Two lawyers might pass in a hallway:
“Good morning, Colonel Smith!”
“How are you today, Colonel Jones?”
As I said, very old school. I knew a few old-timers who used to do that many years ago. Don’t know anyone who does it today.