I’ve been reading The King Of Torts by John Grisham, and I’ve observed that in this story, which takes place mostly in D.C., lawyers are occasionally addressed as “The Honorable…”. I’ve heard of judges doing that, but never lawyers. I’m a big fan of legal fiction, and read every John Grisham or Scott Turow novel I can get my hands on, but I’ve never seen that honorific used for lawyers. Esq., yes-- that’s become so commonly associated with lawyers’ names that many people think it’s a formal university degree, and have forgotten the older usage of the word. But “The Honorable…?” The same thing you call the younger son of an Earl?
Is this just a D.C. thing, or is it the start of a new trend?
To be absolutely accurate, the lawyers in the story weren’t calling themselves Honorable, but it was something you would use in addressing a letter to another lawyer, much as with Esquire.
AFAIK, it’s not a standard courtesy to address, or refer to, a member of the bar per se as “The Honorable N.N.” but rather N.N., Esq. But persons who are chosen as judge (appointive or elective) and persons who are elected to any legislature (or appointed to fill a vacancy until the next election) or to a chief executive office such as Mayor, are designated as “The Hono(u)rable” and retain that designation even after they leave office (presuming that they do not leave office as the result of an indictment or impeachment!). Since many lawyers do serve as judges, legislators, or chief executives of a local government unit, or have so served, many of them are technically entitled to “The Honorable.”
The gradations of salutations among British families of nobility I leave to someone authoritative in that field.
According to my wife’s researches into the works of Teresa Michaels and her colleagues, the younger son of an Earl generally sows his wild oats by becoming a highwayman until entrapped by a haughty beauty with whom he falls in love, with attendant plot complications. This would hardly merit referring to him as “The Honourable” :dubious:
I just read “The King of Torts” about two weeks ago (the nadir of Grisham, might I add) and I took the use of the title as a bit of sarcasm – the lawyers being referred to as such were anything but honorable. I’ve never seen it in actual practice, and if I got a letter addressed to me as The Honorable TeaElle instead of TeaElle, Esq. I’d plotz.
Oh, come on, lawyers call each other “The Honorable” and “Esquire” to address a deeply felt sense of shame at what they really are. Same as Mafiosa calling themselves “Men of Respect.”
Yes, but given the size of the Commons, there will always be a substantial number of MPs who are “honourable”, not “right honourable”. Also, since membership in the Privy Council is for life, once sworn to the Cabinet, you’re a “Right Honourable” for life. The “Honourable” designation for MPs only lasts as long as they’re members of the Commons, I believe.
Spectre, solely on the quality of the novel. Grisham is very competent with regard to technical matters, as he is himself a lawyer and still has many friends in active practice who read his drafts for him and give him advice about new binding precedents and current legal trends. However, without spoilers, I must say that he has told far more compelling, complex and captivating stories, not to mention suspenseful. And again, without spoilers, the ending is a true disappointment. In comparison to The Firm, Runaway Jury or my personal favorite, The Partner, this effort seemed rushed and simplistic.
Of course, I’m pretty sure that Grisham’s marriage was dissolving in the time when King was being written, so I’ll forgive him so long as his next offering is back up to snuff.
I won’t, however, give him a pass if he sells one more of his books to Hollywood without a stipulation in the contract that the screenwriters cannot change essential storyline elements, as they did to, most egregiously and to the stories’ great detriment, to The Firm and Runaway Jury. (And to all of the adapted Grisham’s to some extent, though none as severely as those two.) He writes good stuff, I cannot fathom why he lets Hollywood hacks carve it up, especially when they fiddle with the legal issues that he is so damned painstaking with.
Sorry, I’ll slither right off of my Grisham soapbox now, didn’t mean to hijack. {size=1]Excuse me, please. I’m a little hopped up on coffee and soy nog.[/size]
TeaElle, no need for apologies. I proffered an explicit request for your opinions on Grisham, granting therein a wide lattitude of acceptable response parameters.
Because we like to feel important, even if (like me) we never set foot in a courtroom or did anything else which the general population would recognize as the “practice of law.”
And tip o’the cap to you, **Spectreb]. You’re good people. (IOW, you’re not a lawyer.)
TeaElle, so does that mean Canadian lawyers are ever so 'umble? :dubious:
Doghouse Reilly, just get appointed the next Governor General of Canada, or, if that seems too much work, marry the next GG instead. (The current GG is happily married, so she’s not available.)
