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:

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.

+1. Becomes a discovery battle nightmare in litigation. Putting JD, PhD by a name doesn't make the communication attorney-client privileged.

Of course that isn't the end of the inquiry. It's just a flag that helps in the eDiscovery search and increases the chances that the email gets closer review. It does help and it certainly isn't what creates a fight. The preference is alway that legal advice is tagged as privileged, but that doesn't always happen with internal communications. Having something in the email signature is helpful.

+1

Anyone blathering on about "Putting JD in the communication doesn't make it privileged!!!" is probably not a lawyer, because any actual lawyer would know that other lawyers aren't confused about that and don't need it explained. And anyone who has had to do extensive privilege logs knows that when you have to search through a mountain of documents looking for privilege, knowing the letter or whatever came from an attorney is helpful.

Except you are not generally going in blind. You have a list of names to filter through so the ESQ isn’t necessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1. Becomes a discovery battle nightmare in litigation. Putting JD, PhD by a name doesn't make the communication attorney-client privileged.

Of course that isn't the end of the inquiry. It's just a flag that helps in the eDiscovery search and increases the chances that the email gets closer review. It does help and it certainly isn't what creates a fight. The preference is alway that legal advice is tagged as privileged, but that doesn't always happen with internal communications. Having something in the email signature is helpful.

+1

Anyone blathering on about "Putting JD in the communication doesn't make it privileged!!!" is probably not a lawyer, because any actual lawyer would know that other lawyers aren't confused about that and don't need it explained. And anyone who has had to do extensive privilege logs knows that when you have to search through a mountain of documents looking for privilege, knowing the letter or whatever came from an attorney is helpful.

Except you are not generally going in blind. You have a list of names to filter through so the ESQ isn’t necessary.

Oh and just because it came from a lawyer doesn’t mean it’s privileged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am in Biglaw. All our partners use Esq. in their email signatures, and so do many counsels and associates.

But the email signatures do not otherwise include their titles. So it's not redundant.

Frankly, I'm not sure why they use Esq. instead of their titles. My guess is that it is to prevent people from assessing hierarchy based on titles in the email signature (i.e., unless you know us, you can't tell if the email you've received is from a partner, counsel, or associate). I like that.

I agree it would be annoying to use Esq. when it's "obvious" that you are an attorney, but not if you're using Esq. as the only signal that you're an attorney.

Cornell summarizes it best. They shouldn’t be using it.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/esquire#:~:text=In%20the%20United%20States%2C%20esquire,the%20lawyer%20in%20written%20form.

I'm not even gonna bother clicking on that. No one in Biglaw pays attention to academia. No one in-house, or in litigation, or in public policy. The only people who ever pay attention to academia are people in academia, sometimes government attorneys, and very occasionally judges who are dithering on their opinion.

signed,

Esq., JD
Attorney at biglaw

[Anonymous]

The only appropriate use of Esquire is when you are imploring people to be excellent to each other.

Sincerely,

Bill S. Preston, Esq

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1. Becomes a discovery battle nightmare in litigation. Putting JD, PhD by a name doesn't make the communication attorney-client privileged.

Of course that isn't the end of the inquiry. It's just a flag that helps in the eDiscovery search and increases the chances that the email gets closer review. It does help and it certainly isn't what creates a fight. The preference is alway that legal advice is tagged as privileged, but that doesn't always happen with internal communications. Having something in the email signature is helpful.

+1

Anyone blathering on about "Putting JD in the communication doesn't make it privileged!!!" is probably not a lawyer, because any actual lawyer would know that other lawyers aren't confused about that and don't need it explained. And anyone who has had to do extensive privilege logs knows that when you have to search through a mountain of documents looking for privilege, knowing the letter or whatever came from an attorney is helpful.

Except you are not generally going in blind. You have a list of names to filter through so the ESQ isn’t necessary.

You don't always have a list of names. It's great when you do, but we often don't have a complete list, especially when we've acquired a company or division of a company.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am in Biglaw. All our partners use Esq. in their email signatures, and so do many counsels and associates.

But the email signatures do not otherwise include their titles. So it's not redundant.

Frankly, I'm not sure why they use Esq. instead of their titles. My guess is that it is to prevent people from assessing hierarchy based on titles in the email signature (i.e., unless you know us, you can't tell if the email you've received is from a partner, counsel, or associate). I like that.

I agree it would be annoying to use Esq. when it's "obvious" that you are an attorney, but not if you're using Esq. as the only signal that you're an attorney.

Cornell summarizes it best. They shouldn’t be using it.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/esquire#:~:text=In%20the%20United%20States%2C%20esquire,the%20lawyer%20in%20written%20form.

I'm not even gonna bother clicking on that. No one in Biglaw pays attention to academia. No one in-house, or in litigation, or in public policy. The only people who ever pay attention to academia are people in academia, sometimes government attorneys, and very occasionally judges who are dithering on their opinion.

signed,

Esq., JD
Attorney at biglaw

And this is way you look like an idiot. Do you speak in first person as well?

[Anonymous]

Actually, I like when other lawyers use it on their signature block and even more so on their business cards. It says a lot about them.

[Anonymous]

Very odd. 25 years as an attorney.

[Anonymous]

I would use it when addressing a letter to another lawyer or putting a lawyer's name in the notice block of a document if they don't otherwise have a legal title like GC etc..

Have never used it to refer to myself. It is much more common in New England than around here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only appropriate use of Esquire is when you are imploring people to be excellent to each other.

Sincerely,

Bill S. Preston, Esq

Party on Dude.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am in Biglaw. All our partners use Esq. in their email signatures, and so do many counsels and associates.

But the email signatures do not otherwise include their titles. So it's not redundant.

Frankly, I'm not sure why they use Esq. instead of their titles. My guess is that it is to prevent people from assessing hierarchy based on titles in the email signature (i.e., unless you know us, you can't tell if the email you've received is from a partner, counsel, or associate). I like that.

I agree it would be annoying to use Esq. when it's "obvious" that you are an attorney, but not if you're using Esq. as the only signal that you're an attorney.

Cornell summarizes it best. They shouldn’t be using it.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/esquire#:~:text=In%20the%20United%20States%2C%20esquire,the%20lawyer%20in%20written%20form.

I'm not even gonna bother clicking on that. No one in Biglaw pays attention to academia. No one in-house, or in litigation, or in public policy. The only people who ever pay attention to academia are people in academia, sometimes government attorneys, and very occasionally judges who are dithering on their opinion.

signed,

Esq., JD
Attorney at biglaw

And this is way you look like an idiot. Do you speak in first person as well?

Isn’t it the worst when you call someone an idiot but your comment contains typos that make you look like the idiot?

[Anonymous]

The issue is people who are not practicing law use it and it's confusing for non lawyers (are they giving legal advice?). If you are giving legal advice and have attorney client privilege, feel free to use it. If you're just someone with a law degree who is working as an engineer, please don't use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1. Becomes a discovery battle nightmare in litigation. Putting JD, PhD by a name doesn't make the communication attorney-client privileged.

Of course that isn't the end of the inquiry. It's just a flag that helps in the eDiscovery search and increases the chances that the email gets closer review. It does help and it certainly isn't what creates a fight. The preference is alway that legal advice is tagged as privileged, but that doesn't always happen with internal communications. Having something in the email signature is helpful.

+1

Anyone blathering on about "Putting JD in the communication doesn't make it privileged!!!" is probably not a lawyer, because any actual lawyer would know that other lawyers aren't confused about that and don't need it explained. And anyone who has had to do extensive privilege logs knows that when you have to search through a mountain of documents looking for privilege, knowing the letter or whatever came from an attorney is helpful.

I wouldn't brag about doing "extensive privilege logs."