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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This ^^. I worked with a lot of folks in a particular federal agency and some were lawyers and some weren't. I'm a lawyer. It was extremely helpful for me to know who the lawyers were. Fortunately, they did use Esquire in their signature blocks. I appreciated it. For this particular agency, it makes a lot of sense for the attorneys to identify themselves in this way in correspondence.

So many people on this thread are blathering on about how this isn't necessary because they don't have the experience to understand how it can be.

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

+1

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

+1

Technically, JD and Esq are not synonymous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Esquire is not used for only JDs. You have to have a JD AND have passed the bar (and are currently barred somewhere). There is a difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s like when someone with a PhD calls themself “Dr.”

I don't get it. What do you mean? Are you saying that someone with a PhD is not a doctor?

I work where there are some folks with JDs who have never sat for the bar exam and some who have passed the bar. When I am looking to consult or citing someone in an opinion, the use of a signifier like Esq. is important. At least in the context of what I do

[Anonymous]

It's unusual and I'm sure many people see it as pretentious. But if your entire agency does it and that's the official policy, then there's nothing pretentious about complying.

[Anonymous]

It doesn’t bother me but why does everyone here add their law school and year of graduation in their signature line?????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This ^^. I worked with a lot of folks in a particular federal agency and some were lawyers and some weren't. I'm a lawyer. It was extremely helpful for me to know who the lawyers were. Fortunately, they did use Esquire in their signature blocks. I appreciated it. For this particular agency, it makes a lot of sense for the attorneys to identify themselves in this way in correspondence.

So many people on this thread are blathering on about how this isn't necessary because they don't have the experience to understand how it can be.

+1. No need to use it if you work at a private law firm, but if you’re in a GC or JD-preferred role (like HR or compliance), it’s useful to know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s like when someone with a PhD calls themself “Dr.”

Which happens a lot

[Anonymous]

It is insubordination not to do what you are directed to do by your superiors

As to JD/Esq being pompous - how so? JDs are a dime a dozen and it means NOTHING in terms of prestige. So either the posters who think it is pompous are NOT attorneys or they are attorneys and are impressed with themselves and assume everyone else is also.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is insubordination not to do what you are directed to do by your superiors

As to JD/Esq being pompous - how so? JDs are a dime a dozen and it means NOTHING in terms of prestige. So either the posters who think it is pompous are NOT attorneys or they are attorneys and are impressed with themselves and assume everyone else is also.

No, as attorneys we think it's over the top and pretentious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s like when someone with a PhD calls themself “Dr.”

Which happens a lot

Because they are "Dr." And it is customary to call them as such in academia, which is where most of them work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is insubordination not to do what you are directed to do by your superiors

As to JD/Esq being pompous - how so? JDs are a dime a dozen and it means NOTHING in terms of prestige. So either the posters who think it is pompous are NOT attorneys or they are attorneys and are impressed with themselves and assume everyone else is also.

No, as attorneys we think it's over the top and pretentious.

No, we don't.

[Anonymous]

You guys are all nerds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t bother me but why does everyone here add their law school and year of graduation in their signature line?????

Where is here? I’ve never done it or seen it.