To the contrary. I’m currently at Yale, which is how I know how overblown they are. Some Yale departments are excellent, yes, but “masters from Yale” perpetuates the Yale ego, while “masters in <subject>” supports the argument.
After all, the most ignorant man in America went to Yale.
On the other hand, there’s always…
“You are a cad, sir!” Frank told the overdressed Harvard bully.
Come now, I hardly think Gary Trudeau deserves such…
Oh. Nevermind.
You need to click the “Return to Homepage” link on your own link, and check out their “about us” page.
A word about judging sources:
Dianne’s information can probably be trusted. She has a vested interest in maintaining her professional reputation by publishing well-researched, objective facts.
Meanwhile, your Outlaws Legal folks state on their own site:
They make no secret of their hatred of lawyers at the cellular level, so how objective can their information be regarding what can be done with them?
I just realized that no one (including me) has yet pointed out the problem with your friend’s calling himself “Mister so-and-so, esquire.” You can be one or the other, but not both!
(OK, technically, you are both, so it’s redundant. Like calling yourself “Dr. Jane Doe, Ph.D.”)
Interesting that my friend got the link from his soon-to-be-practicing friend.
Now, I am confused (well I am usually confused, but thats a different issue) But how exactly is Mister equivalent to Esquire? Esquire is used to indicate ones status as an Attorney in the US. There are women attorney’s who append Esq. to their names. Also Dr. Jane Doe, Ph.D. is not necessarily redundant either. Dr. is an indication of attaining a doctoral degree. Ph.D or MD simply indicate which type of doctorate.
Here we get into the sticky area in usage dividing prescription from description. Any etiquette book, guide to forms of adress, etc., will tell you that esquire is a courtesy title, equivalent to Mister. Anyone can style himself John Doe, esq. or be addressed in this manner. There is no body or authority which bestows the title esquire; it is used simply as a courtesy, a form of politeness and civility. This is in contradistinction to all non-courtesy titles. The title Doctor, for example, is bestowed by universities. Although there is nothing to stop you from calling yourself Dr. askeptic, and and asking others to do likewise, you would widely be regarded as claiming credentials you don’t have. Doing so on a resume, or in certain other circumstances, could lead to accusations of fraud, and possible legal concequences. Other titles (e.g., Professor, Senator, Lord, Cardinal, Duchess, etc.) are bestowed by other institutions recognized as having the authority to do so by law, custom, or both.
Esquire, as explained above, is different. No one could argue with you if you added esq. to your name, even on a resume or legal document. The only thing stopping most people is that it sounds rather pretentious and affected. Lawyers are singularly unbothered by this. Since only lawyers use the title, it has come to be a practical indication that a person is an attorney. All this was explained in the original article. Also explained was the fact that by custom, you never use both Mr. and esq. at the same time (because they indicate the same thing, technically.)
Why don’t law schools, as degree granting institutions, award the title esquire as a special honor (since no one else wants it anyway)? Simply because it would be a step down. Law schools already award graduates a Juris Doctoris, a Doctor of Laws, a much higher honor than lowley old esquire. Custom dictates that lawyers not call themselves Dr., on the grounds that lawyers are pretentious enough as it is. 
It is considered incorrect to use the form Dr. so-and-so followed by a degree, because the degree already indicates that the person is a doctor. If you want to specify the type of doctor, you use the degree without the title.
Esquire was a male title AFAIK until recently. Lately, female lawyers have begun using it in imitation of male lawyers. Since it once indicated a social rank which women did not hold, it has no feminine form (besides Miss, Ms. and Mrs.). However ,I for one do not see that as a reason for women not to use it today.
And don’t even get me started on honorifics like “Reverend”!
Actually, this triggers my memory on another question. New thread time…
(Hijack)
However, it is my recollection (will search for a cite if asked) that the cost of the colonies to Britain (soldiers, administration etc) far exceeded the tax return. I am sure they hoped in future this would change. People in the colonies were taxed far less than the equivalent british citizen at home, which is why the call for no taxation without representation went down like a lead balloon in London
Actually, the degree is Juris Doctor, a New Latin title usually translated as “doctor of jurisprudence.” The older degree, LL.D., meant “doctor of laws,” deriving from the usage of “LL” to denote “laws” used for example in citing old statute law collections, “LL. Hen. I.” Up to the 1960’s or thereabouts, law schools usually handed out the degree LL.B., bachelor of laws, but decided to create a degree which more clearly indicated the relevant value of the post-graduate study done to become a lawyer (or, if you prefer the cynical explanation, to confer upon law school graduates a sense of importance equivalent to medical school graduates). Thus was born the J.D.
It is tempting to assert that there is a validity to the change in title, corresponding to the change in the purpose of legal education. The old degree, “bachelor of laws,” signified that the person had studied the “laws,” that is, had read up on and learned the various applicable statutes under which the realm or country was governed. This conformed to the old style of legal education, wherein one slowly but surely learned, usually by reading out of books, the applicable statutory provisions and relevant cases by which the courts were governed (yes, this is a simplification of the process; I’m simply drawing out the basic thread to support the conceptual change argument). The modern legal student is expected to do more than just learn the applicable statutory and case law; s/he is expected to understand the processes behind the law, the social and economic pressures that go into how the law is formulated, and the practical result of its application in society. The course of study includes not only the core courses about various important fields of the law (e.g. torts, contracts, etc.), but also internships, legal and constitutional history, ethics of being a lawyer, etc. In short, he learns not only the “laws” but the “law,” i.e., the whole subject of jurisprudence.
This is, of course, total bunk. A law student spends his time doing two vital things: learning how to pass a state bar exam and obtaining a job. If s/he is willing, and feels able to spend the time, s/he can obtain a wealth of information about some of the other issues mentioned above, but given that an attorney, newly minted and fresh from swearing in (having demonstrated his/her competency by passing said bar exam), can arrive the next day in court to represent a client without ever once having been required to step foot in a courtroom, head filled with useless federal civil procedure rules inapplicable in the state court in which s/he finds him/herself, it is wishful thinking at best to attach to the distinction in degrees too much meaning.
I would never assert that I am entitled to the honorific “doctor,” despite my degree.
Many years ago, I was, along with many other West Virginia High-School students, awarded a Knighthood by the West Virginia State Legislature.
They award it every year to students who get the best scores on a West Virginia History Exam … the title is ‘Knight of the Golden Horseshoe’ … with these legal wranglings, I wonder if the title is just kind of a gag, or if the legislature overstepped their bounds, or what.
Seriously, there was a whole ceremony and everything.
Not equivalent, but incompatible. “Mr.” identifies a gentleman (which, no matter what your mother told you, means someone who owns his own land and is entitled to a coat of arms). “Esq.” identifies an esquire, which has been explained, is the next rank up, above a gentleman, but below a knight.
Buddy, I realize you’re all excited by Renaissance play acting, but you should refrain from interjecting such drivel into a forum devoted to fighting ignorance. Mr. most certainly does not mean someone who owns land IN THIS FREAKIN COUNTRY, no matter what it meant in England, nor as I explained does Esq. mean anything other than the person is claiming to be a Lawyer IN THIS FREAKIN COUNTRY. Both terms are equally availible to anyone, a woman is equally allowed to sign a letter as Mr. so and so, and Joe Blow can add Esq. to his name if he wants to. He just better not attempt to practice law without a license. According to your definition, every male who lives in an apartment cannot be called Mr. X. Well, in THIS FREAKIN COUNTRY if he is your boss and wants you to call him Mr.X you better do it whether or not he owns land. (BTW us southern boys tend to call anyone older than ourselves Mr.)
My, what a quaint little load of rubbish.
“Mister” is the acceptable form of address for adult male humans, sometimes extended to younger folk. It is also a specific address in the navy. I know many people legitimately called “Mister” who own no land, whatsoever. Likewise, since there is no legal status of a “coat of arms” in US law, then your daffynition would mean that no citizen of the USA ought to be called “Mister” (foreign arms are irrelevant).
As for your cute little daffynition of “esquire”, well, let me put it this way: Do you insist that the world “girl” refer to both male and female children? At one time, it did. If you insist upon your silly little daffynition of “esquire”, you must also insist upon the earlier use of “girl”, otherwise, you are a hypocrite.
Good lord, askeptic, I think you should TAKE A FREAKIN [sic] VALIUM. You asked a question regarding esquire and mister. JWK tried to answer it. The answer involved delving into the historical root of the titles in question. Would you have bitched had he answered:
“Oh, don’t worry about it, in the US these days, neither really has any meaning anymore and anybody can use them any old way.”
I for one, enjoyed the information, it’s exactly the kind of thing I come here for.
Well I for one already knew the historical background. Are you suggesting that Esq. has any meaning in this country other than to convey ones status as a lawyer? If so, you are either young, or a knuckleHead.
I know I’m not a moderator, but children: play nice.
While I don’t disagree with the majority of your post, I wanted to point out that my degree is indeed a Juris Doctoris.