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

Forum Index » Jobs and Careers

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=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.[/quote]
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.[/quote]

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

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. [/quote]

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

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

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics