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

[Anonymous]

I’ve been a lawyer for 25 years and it was pretty common to sign like OP’s example. I don’t see it much anymore.

[Anonymous]

I used to work in legal aid and all of the attorneys signed their names as Esq. it was weird and I tried to avoid doing it but others would ask why I didn’t. They never answered me as to why they did. I fell in line but left that job after 18 months. Too many trust fund babies who thought too much of themselves and their legal skills.

That said, OP, if it’s what your agency does, just do it. It’s no biggie and I’ve never signed off like that since leaving that job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I am a GC and people know I’m the GC because right below the company name in my sig line it says “General Counsel.” If my law degree is relevant, upon introduction I say, “dear so and so, as company’s legal counsel, I am reaching out to inform….” Or whatever. If the law degree is important, move it to the correspondence. Like any other matter, you don’t put important things in footnotes.

It can be useful to know if someone is an attorney, but Esq. is not the only way to signal that. And if you find another solution, you look less like a douche.

But OP should follow agency policy, even if it is cringe.

[Anonymous]

I'm a government attorney, use of esquire is not common in my office.

But you should follow your individual office's style guide. This is not something that's worth using your goodwill to push back.

[Anonymous]

I work at an agency where people in non attorney positions were constantly putting "Esquire" in their signature. Every time I see it I have to stop them. If you're not in an attorney position, you shouldn't use it. No one cares that you went to law school- you don't have attorney client privilege.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I work at an agency where people in non attorney positions were constantly putting "Esquire" in their signature. Every time I see it I have to stop them. If you're not in an attorney position, you shouldn't use it. No one cares that you went to law school- you don't have attorney client privilege.

100% this. It's misleading at best, and can be problematic when it misleads others into thinking that you're authorized by your agency to decide it's legal position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I work at an agency where people in non attorney positions were constantly putting "Esquire" in their signature. Every time I see it I have to stop them. If you're not in an attorney position, you shouldn't use it. No one cares that you went to law school- you don't have attorney client privilege.

We have in house legal positions that do have attorney client privilege where the title may not make it obvious to someone whether they are an attorney (e.g., Senior Patent Director). They usually signal their status by putting "JD, PhD" in their signature (when true) instead of Esq, but it is absolutely helpful if their email signature makes it clear that they are an attorney. It's not unusual that we'll collect someone's emails 5-15 years later for a litigation, long after they've left the organization, and need to filter for privileged emails.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I work at an agency where people in non attorney positions were constantly putting "Esquire" in their signature. Every time I see it I have to stop them. If you're not in an attorney position, you shouldn't use it. No one cares that you went to law school- you don't have attorney client privilege.

Although, unless you're a public defender or some kind of legal aid, no one contacting a government attorney would have attorney/client privilege. The "client" is the government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work at an agency where people in non attorney positions were constantly putting "Esquire" in their signature. Every time I see it I have to stop them. If you're not in an attorney position, you shouldn't use it. No one cares that you went to law school- you don't have attorney client privilege.

Although, unless you're a public defender or some kind of legal aid, no one contacting a government attorney would have attorney/client privilege. The "client" is the government.

What? You realize that attorneys who represent the United States often do correspond with actual people? Like people who work for particular agencies? And that when they "contact" us, that communication can be privileged?

The arm-chair lawyering around here is astonishingly bad.

This thread is chock full of people who have no idea what they are talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work at an agency where people in non attorney positions were constantly putting "Esquire" in their signature. Every time I see it I have to stop them. If you're not in an attorney position, you shouldn't use it. No one cares that you went to law school- you don't have attorney client privilege.

Although, unless you're a public defender or some kind of legal aid, no one contacting a government attorney would have attorney/client privilege. The "client" is the government.

The Government can assert attorney client privilege, so it definitely matters. Did you not know this? Or do you just not understand the point of privilege? Will your mind be blown to discover that corporations can also assert attorney client privilege? Guessing you're not a practicing lawyer...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work at an agency where people in non attorney positions were constantly putting "Esquire" in their signature. Every time I see it I have to stop them. If you're not in an attorney position, you shouldn't use it. No one cares that you went to law school- you don't have attorney client privilege.

We have in house legal positions that do have attorney client privilege where the title may not make it obvious to someone whether they are an attorney (e.g., Senior Patent Director). They usually signal their status by putting "JD, PhD" in their signature (when true) instead of Esq, but it is absolutely helpful if their email signature makes it clear that they are an attorney. It's not unusual that we'll collect someone's emails 5-15 years later for a litigation, long after they've left the organization, and need to filter for privileged emails.

I hope you understand how problematic it is to rely on someone's signature line containing "JD PhD". That fails to indicate either that the person is even an attorney or that the person is an attorney for the corporation. Merely being licensed as an attorney doesn't mean that the communications would be privileged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been a lawyer for 25 years and it was pretty common to sign like OP’s example. I don’t see it much anymore.

I have also been a lawyer for 25 years and it’s never been super common in my circles.

[Anonymous]

Someone I work with in the government does this. So their email signature is name, esq. and below it says Attorney Advisor. I think it look absolutely ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

This. I was a supervisor of a team of mostly attorneys working non attorney roles and I had to tell a couple people over the years to remove the “esq”, which generally also strikes me as insecure. I’m back in biglaw now and rarely see it (but do judge when I do…)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work at an agency where people in non attorney positions were constantly putting "Esquire" in their signature. Every time I see it I have to stop them. If you're not in an attorney position, you shouldn't use it. No one cares that you went to law school- you don't have attorney client privilege.

100% this. It's misleading at best, and can be problematic when it misleads others into thinking that you're authorized by your agency to decide it's legal position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You guys are all nerds.