Back in the 1970’s, I knew a girl who called herself (First Name) (Last Name) Esquire. I remember thinking at the time, “Her dad must be a lawyer, because she isn’t.” (Yes, I should have thought “Or her mom.”)
Maybe both. I remember a line on Law & Order: “There are so many lawyers in my family that when I was growing up, I thought our last name was Esquire.”
Worked with a guy that had Esq. after his last name, said his father gave that as part of his name was he was born. He also gave it to his son. I told him only lawyers can legally use Esquire, it’s not something just to make a name a bit fancier. He called the state bar association. Not only was he told he can’t use it, he will be sued if he continues to use it in any kind of official capacity.
I have doubts about this story. First of all, there is no law that restricts “Esq.” to lawyers. And bar associations only can take action if the use of “Esq.” is used in a context that implies that the person is a lawyer or has legal expertise. They have no general authority over use of “Esq.”
The bar called impersonation of an attorney, it can only be used after one passes the state bar exam. The bar has the right to defend the use of the term Esquire and they will.
Use of the term “Esq.” by itself is not impersonation of a lawyer. The bar association absolutely not have general authority over use of “Esq.” It is not legally recognized as something exclusive to licensed legal practitioners.
Only the New York bar association has ever asserted that “Esq.” is exclusive to the legal profession, but this has not been tested in court, and I would predict that they would lose if challenged.
Furthermore, the bar association has jurisdiction only over use of “Esq.” by members of the bar association, not over the general public.
A state prosecutor may bring a case against a person who is practising law without a license or fraudulently holding emself out to be a lawyer–whatever the particular claim is under the specific’s state law–but would not have a case against someone merely using “Esq.” There has to be some other act that would trigger the violation of state law.
Avoid the barristers, they charge a much higher admin fee to get the funds released to you.
I agree with @Ascenray. Given historical usage, I think there is no way that the bar could possibly succeed in this unless there is evidence that someone is actually attempting to impersonate an attorney and styling themselves in this manner as part of an overall plan of deception.
However, this is just bizarre, and I’m suspicious that maybe this guy was trying to impersonate a lawyer, and imagined that this was a valid defense.
Answers my question–thank you very much!
Tripler
Here’s hoping I’ll never need a barrister.
There was a Proposed Amendment to the Constitution: "If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain, any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.[2]
This has been called by some nutsos (who think it actually passed -it was so close some copies of it were indeed printed) that they call it the 13th.
Okay, fine, big deal, wouldn’t do much you say.
Aha, but those nutsos claim that layers are “Esquires” and Esquire is a foreign title so, thereby, ipso facto, really insano-, ergo- all lawyers are illegal…thus barred from being citizen and thus- public office.
No- really.
Now, yes, I get that the circumstances of it getting ratified were cloudy and confused. So, maybe you can believe that it really passed. That does not make you a nutcase.
But then to go on and state that the lawyerly “Esquire” is a title granted by a foreign government- yep, you are in fruitcake heaven.
I have to correct myself. I recently came across a small law firm in Canada, two lawyers, where the lawyers use, “Esq.”
The odd thing is that they are both francophones, practising in Quebec City, and yet they use a term associated with English class structure. 
This was always understanding as well, according to traditional, nonlawyerly rules of etiquette concerning the title, and I’m American. It’s the same with Mr or Ms. I’m less sure about other titles such as Doctor, Professor, Judge, and so on. In some contexts I believe it’s expected that they should use the titles when introducing themselves, or being introduced.
One thing about “Esq.” as a postnominal for lawyers is that it’s so much shorter than “Attorney at Law”, so it leaves more room on the business card. As a kind of shorthand it seems very practical.
As I think I’ve said before, it’s popularity among American lawyers—particularly women—is to make clear to everyone in the room who the lawyer is. This is significant to women, because even now there are people who will turn to any man in the room as the expert or the senior, assuming that the woman must be a secretary or legal assistant or junior. Showing a nameplate or a business card with “Esq.” is slightly more subtle than wearing a sign around your neck that says “I’M THE LAWYER, so speak directly to me (, jackass).”
You know, I wasn’t fond of “esq” until I read this, and now I think it is a good idea.
We don’t use “Attorney at law” in Canada, either. I’m a lawyer.
My ex (also a lawyer) has told me that she would sometimes walk into court, dressed in a suit, and be mistaken for the court reporter. It happened more than once.