No, I never use it. Redundant.

I used to receive a lot of professional correspondence from the IRS. The attorneys used “Esquire.” It was very helpful to know who was an attorney and who wasn’t.

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").

It's like social workers and therapists and engineerings who put their licensing letters after their name.

It establishes their professional credentials anywhere they aren't already established by context.

This. I would use it as a work email signature when not otherwise apparent. Wouldn't use it in personal life.

Your email signature should make it very clear that you're an attorney for many reasons, but better not to use Esq.

Using when not needed, and not using it when needed, are both better than getting stupidly overinvested in it either way.

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").

It's like social workers and therapists and engineerings who put their licensing letters after their name.

It establishes their professional credentials anywhere they aren't already established by context.

Horrid, I would never use it anywhere.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/15/1106684.page and following pages

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").

Countersignaling >> Signaling

Way more of a flex to leave credential indicators off.

I would only use Esq if my title weren't an attorney title. It's redundant. But I would not fight with the GC either.

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

Redundant and annoying.

Wow I didn’t think anyone used “Esq.” and thought a friend who did it was strange.

I work at an agency where the GC and Deputy GC insist that everyone must sign off in the following manner for pleadings and letters:

_____________________
Imma Lawyer, Esq.
Assistant General Counsel
XYZ Agency

I feel like the use of esq. is pretentious and also, isn't it redundant? I've been here a month but it annoys me that this is protocol. Thoughts?