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]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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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[/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