Attorneys - Settle This - The Use of Esquire When it is Obvious You Are An Attorney

[Anonymous]

I never used it because my title was obvious. Now I’m at a federal agency where a lot of people with non-legal titles add it to their signatures. I don’t, but I can see why after having a few interactions with some lawyers who assumed I wasn’t a lawyer because of my title. It’s weird here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's an honorific form of address, used to address someone but not used to describe oneself. So it's acceptable (albeit pompous) to address someone as e.g. "Jane Doe, Esq." but not acceptable to sign in this way ("Sincerely yours, Jane Doe").

This. End of discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Using when not needed, and not using it when needed, are both better than getting stupidly overinvested in it either way.

And since it is never needed, better to never use it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's an honorific form of address, used to address someone but not used to describe oneself. So it's acceptable (albeit pompous) to address someone as e.g. "Jane Doe, Esq." but not acceptable to sign in this way ("Sincerely yours, Jane Doe").

This. End of discussion.

Not "End of discussion." This would have made sense in 1961. Not today. Culture evolves, and social mores move with it, especially in the context of business correspondence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Using when not needed, and not using it when needed, are both better than getting stupidly overinvested in it either way.

And since it is never needed, better to never use it.

What do you mean it is "never needed"? Read the thread, which includes the opinion of attorneys who have found it helpful.

I hate it when non-attorneys roam around commenting on things they have no understanding of. It is so rampant on this website.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's an honorific form of address, used to address someone but not used to describe oneself. So it's acceptable (albeit pompous) to address someone as e.g. "Jane Doe, Esq." but not acceptable to sign in this way ("Sincerely yours, Jane Doe").

This. End of discussion.

Not "End of discussion." This would have made sense in 1961. Not today. Culture evolves, and social mores move with it, especially in the context of business correspondence.

Fine, you're right. It's 2024 and it's douchey and pompous to use at anytime. If you're in a legal position, your title reflects that. If you're not in a legal position, then no one needs to know that you're a lawyer.

[Anonymous]

I don’t do it, but I do see it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's an honorific form of address, used to address someone but not used to describe oneself. So it's acceptable (albeit pompous) to address someone as e.g. "Jane Doe, Esq." but not acceptable to sign in this way ("Sincerely yours, Jane Doe").

This. End of discussion.

Not "End of discussion." This would have made sense in 1961. Not today. Culture evolves, and social mores move with it, especially in the context of business correspondence.

Fine, you're right. It's 2024 and it's douchey and pompous to use at anytime. If you're in a legal position, your title reflects that. If you're not in a legal position, then no one needs to know that you're a lawyer.

I'm in a legal position and I work with a lot of JDs who aren't, and I do actually want to know whether they're attorneys. It changes the starting point when I'm explaining my legal advice.
None of those people use Esq., so I have to figure it out through social channels, but I do want to know.

[Anonymous]

It's of no consequence, but arguing with management will have consequences. Just conform to the policy; there is no reason not to. It's not like you're misrepresenting your credentials. If those credentials are unimportant to someone, or are otherwise already known, they are free to skip over the honorific.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's an honorific form of address, used to address someone but not used to describe oneself. So it's acceptable (albeit pompous) to address someone as e.g. "Jane Doe, Esq." but not acceptable to sign in this way ("Sincerely yours, Jane Doe").

This is what I was taught and what I do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's an honorific form of address, used to address someone but not used to describe oneself. So it's acceptable (albeit pompous) to address someone as e.g. "Jane Doe, Esq." but not acceptable to sign in this way ("Sincerely yours, Jane Doe").

This is the correct answer. If you truly want everyone to know, you put J.D. in your signature (but that’s also pompous, IMO)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Using when not needed, and not using it when needed, are both better than getting stupidly overinvested in it either way.

And since it is never needed, better to never use it.

What do you mean it is "never needed"? Read the thread, which includes the opinion of attorneys who have found it helpful.

I hate it when non-attorneys roam around commenting on things they have no understanding of. It is so rampant on this website.

Pp here—I’m an attorney. I’ve been practicing law for more than 20 years and never found it necessary. Lawyers put their titles in their signatures. If someone in business has a law degree, it’s irrelevant — they aren’t practicing law.

The only attorneys I know who use “Esq.” are local practitioners. I respect what they do and perhaps they find it useful, but I don’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's of no consequence, but arguing with management will have consequences. Just conform to the policy; there is no reason not to. It's not like you're misrepresenting your credentials. If those credentials are unimportant to someone, or are otherwise already known, they are free to skip over the honorific.

I feel OP’s pain. It’s cringey.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I work at an agency where the GC and Deputy GC insist that everyone must sign off in the following manner for pleadings and letters:

_____________________
Imma Lawyer, Esq.
Assistant General Counsel
XYZ Agency

I feel like the use of esq. is pretentious and also, isn't it redundant? I've been here a month but it annoys me that this is protocol. Thoughts?

This sounds like one of those things which has a sordid story behind it and they decided to nip it in the bud thereafter. Not your hill Op

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's an honorific form of address, used to address someone but not used to describe oneself. So it's acceptable (albeit pompous) to address someone as e.g. "Jane Doe, Esq." but not acceptable to sign in this way ("Sincerely yours, Jane Doe").

This. End of discussion.

Not "End of discussion." This would have made sense in 1961. Not today. Culture evolves, and social mores move with it, especially in the context of business correspondence.

Fine, you're right. It's 2024 and it's douchey and pompous to use at anytime. If you're in a legal position, your title reflects that. If you're not in a legal position, then no one needs to know that you're a lawyer.

Incorrect

-- a lawyer