As this thread makes clear, a lot of people are super touchy about this, so it's best not to call yourself a lawyer if you aren't barred.

However, living and working in DC has often made me wish we had a clear category for people with legal training (i.e. law school, and perhaps even passing the bar) but who are not currently barred attorneys. There are many, many people in this city with legal backgrounds who don't practice. Some maintain their bar membership but many do not -- they work in policy or research or consulting and will never represent a client as an attorney, so they don't bother. But they know a lot more about the law than people who didn't go to law school.

As a practical matter though, if you say someone is a lawyer, they assume you could represent them in court. So it's best to only use that word to describe people who legally can do that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about Esquire. My horrible first job required men to be listed as esq. and women as ‘attorney at law’.

No one should ever refer to themselves as esquire. It's pretentious and gouache. Esquire should only be used in correspondence directed to an attorney. I have seen some law firms use attorney at law on their business cards.

This is what I was taught as a young attorney. It is an honorific you grant to others and do not refer to yourself as.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t there a difference between attorneys and solicitors? My work makes a distinction

In the UK a solicitor is a lawyer who advises and a barrister is a lawyer who argues in court. I’ve never heard solicitor used in the us in relation to law. In securities, it’s someone licensed to market and sell a product on someone else’s behalf

We literally have a Solicitor General of the United States.

Anonymous wrote:I never knew this

A Lawyer is someone who graduated Law School

An Attorney is someone graduated law school and passed the bar exam.

So all Attorneys are lawyers but not all lawyers are Attorneys

It is similar to you are an Accountant if you have an accounting degree but a CPA has an accounting degree plus passed CPA exam

See also:

Litigator, barrister and solicitor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was under the impression that at least some states allow people who have not graduated from law school, but who have passed the bar exam, to practice law. I assume that this is not a common situation, but, by OP's logic, this is not possible.

Yes, it's rare but California has this. Usually it's for people who went to law school in another country (masters of law). Then they take the bar. However, California's Bar is very difficult, even for those graduating from a California law school.

No, that's not what PP is talking about. A few bars allow people to literally just study for the bar, under the supervision of a practicing attorney. That's very different from foreign qualified lawyers who only have a US LLM (most common law qualified foreign lawyers have an LLB).

Anonymous wrote:I was under the impression that at least some states allow people who have not graduated from law school, but who have passed the bar exam, to practice law. I assume that this is not a common situation, but, by OP's logic, this is not possible.

Yes, it's rare but California has this. Usually it's for people who went to law school in another country (masters of law). Then they take the bar. However, California's Bar is very difficult, even for those graduating from a California law school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t there a difference between attorneys and solicitors? My work makes a distinction

In the UK a solicitor is a lawyer who advises and a barrister is a lawyer who argues in court. I’ve never heard solicitor used in the us in relation to law. In securities, it’s someone licensed to market and sell a product on someone else’s behalf

You’ve never heard of the Solicitor General of the United States?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solicitor_General_of_the_United_States

It's an antiquated term in the US that largely applies to roles established in the early 19th century

Anonymous wrote:Oh FFS.

--signed, practicing attorney/lawyer for 25 years who doesn't care about pedantic distinctions.

Most of law is pedantic distinctions, buddy

Oh FFS.

--signed, practicing attorney/lawyer for 25 years who doesn't care about pedantic distinctions.

Virginia allows individuals to "read for the law" - a sort of apprenticeship, and then take the bar exam. There are other educational requirements, I believe.

I was under the impression that at least some states allow people who have not graduated from law school, but who have passed the bar exam, to practice law. I assume that this is not a common situation, but, by OP's logic, this is not possible.

My grandmother used to make delicious gouache!

This is the dumbest thread ever. Why even post this?

Anonymous wrote:What about Esquire. My horrible first job required men to be listed as esq. and women as ‘attorney at law’.

No one should ever refer to themselves as esquire. It's pretentious and gouache. Esquire should only be used in correspondence directed to an attorney. I have seen some law firms use attorney at law on their business cards.

Anonymous wrote:What about Esquire. My horrible first job required men to be listed as esq. and women as ‘attorney at law’.

Esquire is definitely supposed to be someone who's licesned though it's pretty rare to use it nowadays unless you're trying to make some kind of point. And even then I've always seen it was Name, Esq. Never written out.

I've personally never seen anyone use "Attorney at Law" in the ten years I've been practicing.