But perhaps it should be pointed out that ‘Esq.’ originally had nothing to do with lawyers per se, but was simply a young man in service to a knight, as part of his own knighthood training. Later it became a word designating a social rank above the common herd but below Knights, and from there it spread a bit further to anyone who could reasonably be considered a “gentleman”.
I’ve heard it preposterously referred to as an ‘E-S-Q’, as if it were a law degree. But as I said, the original usage had nothing to do with lawyers so it shouldn’t be thought of as a title in the way that “doctor” is.
Good correction about a lawyer requiring a license and not just a law degree; I’m tempted to e-mail Bill Walsh and point this out to him! However, I think that the distinction between “attorney” and “attorney-at-law” (however valid) begs the question of Walsh’s point: you would still never be a New York attorney-at-law or just an attorney-at-law. So using either “attorney” or “attorney-at-law” as a title remains incorrect: you may be a lawyer all of the time, but you are only an attorney (-at-law or -in-fact) while you are representing someone.
Yes, it is illegal to practice law in the U.S. without being licensed in the state in which you are practicing.
Each U.S. State has different requirements for the education necessary for bar admission. The American Bar Association has published the Comprehensive Guide to Bar Admission. The Guide’s Chart 3 (pdf file) lists the requirements for education for each U.S. jurisdiction.
So what should I be calling myself? I have a law degree (a Juris Doctor), but I have not passed the Bar Exam yet. I’ve never gotten a straight answer for this post-law school “stuck in the middle” period.
It is the case, but the point is that each state sets its own requirements for obtaining such licensure and such requirements have changed over time, and the name of the initial law degree has changed over time. Thus, if you take a look at all the people who are currently licensed to practise law throughout the United States, the vast majority will have obtained “J.D.” degrees, but a significant proportion of older lawyers will have “LL.B.” degrees. Some small percentage of lawyers will have managed to obtain licenses without having attended law school.
This is an issue that has been discussed extensively on this forum. I myself find “Esq.” to be silly and pretentious, but the basic fact of the matter is that regardless of the history of the title, in the United States, “Esq.” is commonly used to indicate that the person is a lawyer.
In fact, it is rather similar to “doctor,” in that there is nothing about the title doctor that makes it an indicator of physicians. It’s only through common (mis-)use of the title that has resulted in “physician”<=>“doctor.”
Generally, I agree with Walsh, but I think here he is wrong. Please, message him.
This is more or less like the “Esq.” issue. Yes, technically it’s wrong, but after a while you get tired of correcting everyone.
