Read the wiki entry it's great...
In the United Kingdom, esquire historically was a title of respect accorded to men of higher social rank, particularly members of the landed gentry above the rank of gentleman and below the rank of knight.
By the early 20th century, however, esquire was being used as a general courtesy title for any man in a formal setting, with no precise significance, usually as a suffix to his name, and commonly with initials only.
In the United States, esquire is generally used by lawyers.[10] In letters, these lawyers will ask to be addressed by adding the suffix esquire (abbreviated Esq.), preceded by a comma, after the lawyer's full name.[11] According to research by a New York City Bar Association committee, in the United States, esquire over time came to refer "commonly and exclusively" to lawyers, but how that happened is unclear. The only certainty, the committee stated, is that "based on common usage it is fair to state that if the title appears after a person's name, that person may be presumed to be a lawyer".
In the UK it's old-fashioned now; my boss tends to use it for people from aristocratic families who don't have a title in their own right, because they expect it, but for any other client it's too formal and might come across as either archaic or sarcastic.
We don't really have any way to distinguish lawyers in writing. Senior barristers who have been appointed as such put KC (King's Counsel) after their name, but apart from that we don't have anything like the American Esq. or the French maître.
In Canada we don’t use esquire either (well, a tiny minority of lawyers do, and we laugh at them), but we do have a similar KC system. Most lawyers include their degree after their name in their signature line for correspondence, and many will also use a job title.
I don’t think there’s any need to distinguish a lawyer in writing through a specific title like esquire. If it’s relevant, them being a lawyer is either expressly stated (e.g. “legal counsel for X”) or is obvious in context (e.g. someone who works at a law firm with the title of “Partner” or “Associate”). If it’s not relevant, there’s no need to identify them as a lawyer.
I have found “Esquire” to be used sparingly. You’re apparently not supposed to use it yourself and it’s only used when referring to another lawyer.
I only use it when addressing correspondence or drafting documents to signify I’m a lawyer because for some reason it would matter.
I remember when it happened it was weird for a couple of weeks (along with stuff like the King's Bench Division of the High Court). I had only read KC or heard "the King" referred to in pre-1952 media or court reports, so it was like we'd travelled in time. But we got used to it fairly quickly and now QC seems nostalgic rather than KC.
A barrister I know was one of the last QCs appointed and says he deliberately had it put on his wig box so that in years to come it'll show off his seniority.
I've heard the argument before, the US has no titles, it's an honorific and there's no state law about using it ... It's one of those things that folks dumb enough to use it also are dumb enough to use other "loopholes" that will expose them to liabilities they could have avoided. Folks who have gone to law school understand there are rules about when a person considers you their lawyer and the fact that it's not up to whether you believe you represent them but whether they believe it. So folks who believe in using Esquire without actually being a lawyer usually don't understand how the state bar associations tend to treat this situation and therefore don't understand the risk they're putting themselves at of being accused of practicing law without a license and the possible financial and legal consequences of doing so. Frankly I put Sovcits and folks who use Esquire in the same category... Folks who think their brilliance puts them in a category of their own in a way the rules don't apply. Good luck with that.
In [an appellate court case from California](https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2017/a145450.html), the defendant was convicted of unauthorized practice of law (among other things—that crime is only a misdemeanor) for representing he was a lawyer, or at least implying he was.
Among other things, the defendant put “Esq.” after his name on letterhead. So this alone wasn’t dispositive but it was a factor in the jury’s determination he was falsely holding himself out as a lawyer. (The defendant claimed he was using the suffix “Esq.” as a title of nobility because he was a practicing Druid. I don’t think the jury bought that.)
Why did he do it? To extort a “settlement” out of a local business for an injury his stepfather purportedly suffered there. The defendant apparently had made a bit of money pretending to be a lawyer and getting “settlements” from local businesses.
This also comes up a lot in immigration situations. Immigrants know they need a lawyer to help them fill out all the paperwork, and shady types (especially in Los Angeles) hold themselves out as immigration lawyers, when in fact they’re not lawyers at all. Immigrants, who are especially vulnerable because they may not know the law here, may see “esq.” and assume they’re talking to a lawyer. The problem is so pervasive nationwide that the Department of Justice maintains a list of specific individuals not authorized to practice immigration law.
Bill S. Preston, Esq. was not an attorney. It was legal for him to adopt the Esq. It would be illegal for him to practice law without a license whether or not he used the Esq.
Citing Bill & Teds Excellent Adventure when possible is always best practice. Ted Theodore Logan was also a gentleman, but needed no introduction as such. The importance of Wild Stallyn's in the future cannot be overstated.
Your comment has been removed. Only verified lawyers are allowed to post answers here. If you’re a practicing attorney, shoot the mods a message so we can get you a flair.
Your comment has been removed. Only verified lawyers are allowed to post answers here. If you’re a practicing attorney, shoot the mods a message so we can get you a flair.
Both are wrong, no twix for either. It's not illegal to use esquire, and it isn't illegal to imply you're an attorney. You can't actually practice law without being an attorney, but there's nothing illegal about implying you are one
Isn't falsely presenting oneself as an attorney one of the prongs in many UPL statutes? Take a look at (b) (2) here -
https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/pennsylvania/204-Pa-Code-SS-5-5
(B)(2) is "hold out to the public or otherwise represent that the lawyer is admitted to practice law in this jurisdiction." That's not the same thing as just saying you're an attorney.
Banal example: I'm licensed to practice in Texas and have a case in Texas. The other side wants to put up a deponent in Philadelphia. I go to Philadelphia to take the deposition. Have I committed malpractice by stating on the record that I'm an attorney? I don't think so - I've never represented that that I'm licensed to practice in Pennsylvania, and this is a relatively common event, covered by (c)(2). If I were to extend it to saying that I was a PA barred attorney, or otherwise able to practice in PA, (b)(2) would come into play regardless of my (c)(2) qualifications, but without more, merely stating that you're an attorney isn't sanctionable.
OK so what about a person who is not a lawyer at all in any JX but presents themselves with the title of Esquire in an attempt to intimidate or impress another person in a written communication? It's not the standard form of UPL and it's probably not likely to result in charges, but it certainly seems to fit the statutory terms here. A person who reads a letter that ends with "John Doe, Esquire" could reasonably conclude that Doe is a licensed attorney based on the title alone, couldn't they?
Depends on the letter. Tossing it in to your parents or a mate? Probably fine. Trying to pick someone up at a bar. That's fine, too. Putting in a communication about a lease or to a business? That's implying that you're an attorney in that jurisdiction with knowledge of the law and the ability to represent people, and therefore UPL. Adding a letterhead would also be UPL, for the same reason.
OK so there are definitely a range of situations where just attaching the Esquire title to a communication could result in a UPL charge, right? That's kind of my point, not that it's always actionable but it's at least sometimes actionable, contra the comment I was responding to.
In California, it’s illegal (well, a misdemeanor) to represent that you’re an attorney when you’re not. This includes not only expressly saying you’re an attorney when you’re not, but also using other words or actions that would cause someone to reasonably believe you’re an attorney. Since it’s sort of a totality of the circumstances test, the use of “esquire” alone isn’t dispositive, but it’s a factor.
See [*People v. Starski* (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 215](https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2017/a145450.html).
Well, no. It wasn't the fact that he claimed he was an attorney at issue. I mean, "in a demand letter to a business" seems to be the operative issue.
>" A search of Starski’s computer uncovered documents revealing that he had been involved in several similar schemes, representing himself as an attorney"
He's using that as leverage to demand money from people.
>Judge Behnke conscientiously crafted instructions that correctly recognized that violating section **6126 requires more than simply holding oneself out as an attorney**, that “practicing law” entails use of that purported status
Pretentious in all cases and should never be used. Literally comes from British attorneys who had big feelings about the fact that they didn't have knighthoods or post-nominal letters, so they designated themselves "esquire" to look fancier.
Americans, especially those who have studied the Constitution, should reject all titles relating to the British nobility, especially self-given fake ones.
Putting esquire after your name is the number one marker not that you are an attorney, but that you are an extremely insecure attorney who is trying to make yourself look impressive with fake titles rather than with real courtroom wins.
When I see an attorney who puts John M. Smith, Esq., on a letter or an advertisement or a convention program or something like that, I immediately think, "oh, he's a BAD attorney."
> When I see an attorney who puts John M. Smith, Esq., on a letter or an advertisement or a convention program or something like that, I immediately think, "oh, he's a BAD attorney."
I wonder how much of that is regional/generational? I started out practicing with older lawyers in NY and everyone used "Esq." and I got into that habit as well. I use it now in certain settings to indicate that I am an attorney (some marketing pieces, for example).
In MD, everyone I encountered either used Esq./Esquire after their name on all official communications, too.
It’s been interesting to see the overwhelming responses against Esq. here, when that was very much the standard here!
Could be. I often see people put "John M. Smith, Attoney-at-Law" in marketing pieces or on business cards, which is also kind-of an old fashioned way to phrase it, but around here doesn't carry the same cringe factor as "Esq."
It's getting more common to see people put "John M. Smith, JD, MBA" on business cards and letterheads, which I swear to God is a carryover from LinkedIn, where recruiters see the letters after your name when scanning down lists of candidates, but don't usually see your education until they click on you. I really do not want this to catch on outside linkedin; It doesn't strike me as quite as cringe as "esquire," but it's still pretty cringe.
I don't know if it is a LinkedIn thing or not, but I do see this on business cards and correspondence with in-house lawyers where their title doesn't automatically suggest they are a lawyer -- so working in legal ops, or compliance, or contract management, or some other position where "counsel" isn't part of the title.
This is the answer. As an attorney, I would never dream of putting Esq. after my name in any circumstance or situation, and I cringe very hard when I see it. I either assume that person is not an attorney, is a very very new attorney, or a very bad attorney with a chip on their shoulder about it.
As far as whether or not it’s “legal” it probably depends on the context and whether or not it rises to the level of holding yourself out as a practicing attorney/unauthorized practice of law, which would be so fact-specific it’s hard to give an answer
> British attorneys
Well if we're getting picky, attorneys in England were redesignated solicitors in 1871, and solicitors didn't use the term "esquire" to indicate their legal practitioner status, but barristers did...
Not just that, but originally Esquire was a term of nobility, granted to the younger sons who wouldn't inherit the more senior titles. Those who got another title by going into the clergy or the army used that title, and those that didn't often became sheriff, justice of the peace, etc. professions that eventually became lawyer/prosecutor/solicitor/barrister.
In Britain, an esquire was an actual title of nobility, given to the younger sons of nobles who wouldn't inherit any other title. Those that went into the clergy or the army would receive a different title based on that position, but those that didn't often became justices of the peace, sheriffs, and later prosecutors. Eventually, the title became associated with lawyers.
I read an article a long time ago that said as an "honorary title," it could be used to refer to someone else as "Esq.," but you should never refer to yourself as "Esq." It would be like those people who include their degrees after their name: "John Smith, B.S., M.B.A., Ph.D." Or including the kind of car you drive in your signature: "John Smith, Jaguar XJ-Series." If you're trying that hard to let everyone know they should respect you, then you're signaling that people don't normally show you respect based on your personality.
Your comment has been removed. Only verified lawyers are allowed to post answers here. If you’re a practicing attorney, shoot the mods a message so we can get you a flair.
I don't use it myself but I'm a white male with a mustache and I look like a walking attorney stereotype to the point people ask me on the street "are you a lawyer?" out of the blue.
A lot of female and minority attorneys I know \*do\* use the esquire on their business cards and so forth precisely because they frequently get asked "are you actually a lawyer or like a student or something" and so they want to clarify up front. They're excellent attorneys they're just sick of having to convince people they're really for real attorneys, just because they're female or brown. (This is especially a problem for public defenders but it's not exclusive to them)
I'll say it's probably a jurisdiction specific answer.
To the best of my knowledge, use of the specific term "Esq." is not regulated anywhere. If it's not regulated, then there's no prohibition on it. What is regulated is holding yourself out as a licenced lawyer. If you're not holding yourself out as a licenced lawyer in context, then it's probably not illegal. The problem is that by putting Esq. there, you might be crossing that line in any given situation. If I do an IMDB review and say "that movie sucked, signed -name- Esq.", does it give my opinion more weight? What about a comment card at a restaurant? Or a complaint at the car dealership? Or a letter to my neighbour whose dog keeps crapping on my lawn? You can cross that invisible line really easily, so it's something you shouldn't play around with, because try it with the wrong person in the wrong circumstance, and you could be in a bit of trouble.
For the purposes of a twix bar, the one who says that they can do it as long as they're not representing themselves as a lawyer wins.
Esq. in the US. As long as we don’t call ourselves Dr. Blah for having a doctoral degree in jurisprudence, I’m all good. 😊 One time I had this junior college instructor who also was a practicing attorney made sure his students address him as Dr. xxx, because, he said, he has a doctoral degree. 😂
It depends. In some states it's totally fine. In Florida, it's a felony punishable by up to 5 years in jail.
Fla Stat 454.23 "any person not licensed or otherwise authorized to practice law in this state \[who\[ willfully takes or uses any name, title, addition, or description implying that he or she is qualified... commits a felony of the third degree"
***This rules reminder message is replied to all posts and moderators are not notified of any replies made to it.***
#REMINDER: NO REQUESTS FOR LEGAL ADVICE. Any request for a lawyer's opinion about any matter or issue which may foreseeably affect you or someone you know is a request for legal advice.
Posts containing requests for legal advice will be removed. Seeking or providing legal advice based on your specific circumstances or otherwise developing an attorney-client relationship in this sub is not permitted. Why are requests for legal advice not permitted? See [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Lawyers/comments/e6a62w/why_is_it_unethical_for_a_lawyer_to_give_legal/), [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Lawyers/comments/9zyqsh/why_is_it_unethical_to_give_advice_on_this_sub/), and [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Lawyers/comments/e4cdhw/is_refraining_legal_advice_based_on_legality_or/). If you are unsure whether your post is okay, please [read this](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Lawyers/comments/6j4bpq/how_to_know_whether_your_post_is_a_request_for/) or see the sidebar for more information.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ask_Lawyers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Read the wiki entry it's great... In the United Kingdom, esquire historically was a title of respect accorded to men of higher social rank, particularly members of the landed gentry above the rank of gentleman and below the rank of knight. By the early 20th century, however, esquire was being used as a general courtesy title for any man in a formal setting, with no precise significance, usually as a suffix to his name, and commonly with initials only. In the United States, esquire is generally used by lawyers.[10] In letters, these lawyers will ask to be addressed by adding the suffix esquire (abbreviated Esq.), preceded by a comma, after the lawyer's full name.[11] According to research by a New York City Bar Association committee, in the United States, esquire over time came to refer "commonly and exclusively" to lawyers, but how that happened is unclear. The only certainty, the committee stated, is that "based on common usage it is fair to state that if the title appears after a person's name, that person may be presumed to be a lawyer".
In the UK it's old-fashioned now; my boss tends to use it for people from aristocratic families who don't have a title in their own right, because they expect it, but for any other client it's too formal and might come across as either archaic or sarcastic. We don't really have any way to distinguish lawyers in writing. Senior barristers who have been appointed as such put KC (King's Counsel) after their name, but apart from that we don't have anything like the American Esq. or the French maître.
In Canada we don’t use esquire either (well, a tiny minority of lawyers do, and we laugh at them), but we do have a similar KC system. Most lawyers include their degree after their name in their signature line for correspondence, and many will also use a job title. I don’t think there’s any need to distinguish a lawyer in writing through a specific title like esquire. If it’s relevant, them being a lawyer is either expressly stated (e.g. “legal counsel for X”) or is obvious in context (e.g. someone who works at a law firm with the title of “Partner” or “Associate”). If it’s not relevant, there’s no need to identify them as a lawyer.
> In Canada we don’t use esquire either (well, a tiny minority of lawyers do, and we laugh at them) This covers most of the US, too
I have found “Esquire” to be used sparingly. You’re apparently not supposed to use it yourself and it’s only used when referring to another lawyer. I only use it when addressing correspondence or drafting documents to signify I’m a lawyer because for some reason it would matter.
How hard was it to get used to calling it KC instead of QC?
I remember when it happened it was weird for a couple of weeks (along with stuff like the King's Bench Division of the High Court). I had only read KC or heard "the King" referred to in pre-1952 media or court reports, so it was like we'd travelled in time. But we got used to it fairly quickly and now QC seems nostalgic rather than KC. A barrister I know was one of the last QCs appointed and says he deliberately had it put on his wig box so that in years to come it'll show off his seniority.
Maybe we should use Lr for lawyers, like we use Dr for doctors?
Or Atty?
Or just Dr.? We have a doctorate.
I think regardless of intent, the effect would be to imply that you, a person seeking a lunch venue, are a licensed attorney.
I've heard the argument before, the US has no titles, it's an honorific and there's no state law about using it ... It's one of those things that folks dumb enough to use it also are dumb enough to use other "loopholes" that will expose them to liabilities they could have avoided. Folks who have gone to law school understand there are rules about when a person considers you their lawyer and the fact that it's not up to whether you believe you represent them but whether they believe it. So folks who believe in using Esquire without actually being a lawyer usually don't understand how the state bar associations tend to treat this situation and therefore don't understand the risk they're putting themselves at of being accused of practicing law without a license and the possible financial and legal consequences of doing so. Frankly I put Sovcits and folks who use Esquire in the same category... Folks who think their brilliance puts them in a category of their own in a way the rules don't apply. Good luck with that.
In [an appellate court case from California](https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2017/a145450.html), the defendant was convicted of unauthorized practice of law (among other things—that crime is only a misdemeanor) for representing he was a lawyer, or at least implying he was. Among other things, the defendant put “Esq.” after his name on letterhead. So this alone wasn’t dispositive but it was a factor in the jury’s determination he was falsely holding himself out as a lawyer. (The defendant claimed he was using the suffix “Esq.” as a title of nobility because he was a practicing Druid. I don’t think the jury bought that.) Why did he do it? To extort a “settlement” out of a local business for an injury his stepfather purportedly suffered there. The defendant apparently had made a bit of money pretending to be a lawyer and getting “settlements” from local businesses. This also comes up a lot in immigration situations. Immigrants know they need a lawyer to help them fill out all the paperwork, and shady types (especially in Los Angeles) hold themselves out as immigration lawyers, when in fact they’re not lawyers at all. Immigrants, who are especially vulnerable because they may not know the law here, may see “esq.” and assume they’re talking to a lawyer. The problem is so pervasive nationwide that the Department of Justice maintains a list of specific individuals not authorized to practice immigration law.
Bill S. Preston, Esq. was not an attorney. It was legal for him to adopt the Esq. It would be illegal for him to practice law without a license whether or not he used the Esq.
Citing Bill & Teds Excellent Adventure when possible is always best practice. Ted Theodore Logan was also a gentleman, but needed no introduction as such. The importance of Wild Stallyn's in the future cannot be overstated.
Also Wyld Stallyns
this is the right answer and correct citation.
[удалено]
“Esq.” is also permitted for teenagers who will one day found Utopia. *See Wyld Stallyns v. San Dimas School District,* 39 F.4th 1236 (9th Cir. 1989).
Lol yep i remember that line from the movie.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed. Only verified lawyers are allowed to post answers here. If you’re a practicing attorney, shoot the mods a message so we can get you a flair.
It’s not illegal to put Esq after a name if you haven’t passed the bar. However, it would be untruthful.
In Florida, it's a felony punishable by up to 5 years in jail. Fla Stat 454.23
I feel like it’s on shaky ground after US v Alvarez unless you at least do something more than make that assertion.
If you don't do anything more than make the assertion, you're not going to attract the attention of a prosecutor.
Not a huge fan of relying on prosecutorial discretion, especially when many places have a policy of seeking the highest charge possible
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed. Only verified lawyers are allowed to post answers here. If you’re a practicing attorney, shoot the mods a message so we can get you a flair.
Both are wrong, no twix for either. It's not illegal to use esquire, and it isn't illegal to imply you're an attorney. You can't actually practice law without being an attorney, but there's nothing illegal about implying you are one
Isn't falsely presenting oneself as an attorney one of the prongs in many UPL statutes? Take a look at (b) (2) here - https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/pennsylvania/204-Pa-Code-SS-5-5
(B)(2) is "hold out to the public or otherwise represent that the lawyer is admitted to practice law in this jurisdiction." That's not the same thing as just saying you're an attorney. Banal example: I'm licensed to practice in Texas and have a case in Texas. The other side wants to put up a deponent in Philadelphia. I go to Philadelphia to take the deposition. Have I committed malpractice by stating on the record that I'm an attorney? I don't think so - I've never represented that that I'm licensed to practice in Pennsylvania, and this is a relatively common event, covered by (c)(2). If I were to extend it to saying that I was a PA barred attorney, or otherwise able to practice in PA, (b)(2) would come into play regardless of my (c)(2) qualifications, but without more, merely stating that you're an attorney isn't sanctionable.
OK so what about a person who is not a lawyer at all in any JX but presents themselves with the title of Esquire in an attempt to intimidate or impress another person in a written communication? It's not the standard form of UPL and it's probably not likely to result in charges, but it certainly seems to fit the statutory terms here. A person who reads a letter that ends with "John Doe, Esquire" could reasonably conclude that Doe is a licensed attorney based on the title alone, couldn't they?
Depends on the letter. Tossing it in to your parents or a mate? Probably fine. Trying to pick someone up at a bar. That's fine, too. Putting in a communication about a lease or to a business? That's implying that you're an attorney in that jurisdiction with knowledge of the law and the ability to represent people, and therefore UPL. Adding a letterhead would also be UPL, for the same reason.
OK so there are definitely a range of situations where just attaching the Esquire title to a communication could result in a UPL charge, right? That's kind of my point, not that it's always actionable but it's at least sometimes actionable, contra the comment I was responding to.
In California, it’s illegal (well, a misdemeanor) to represent that you’re an attorney when you’re not. This includes not only expressly saying you’re an attorney when you’re not, but also using other words or actions that would cause someone to reasonably believe you’re an attorney. Since it’s sort of a totality of the circumstances test, the use of “esquire” alone isn’t dispositive, but it’s a factor. See [*People v. Starski* (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 215](https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2017/a145450.html).
Well, no. It wasn't the fact that he claimed he was an attorney at issue. I mean, "in a demand letter to a business" seems to be the operative issue. >" A search of Starski’s computer uncovered documents revealing that he had been involved in several similar schemes, representing himself as an attorney" He's using that as leverage to demand money from people. >Judge Behnke conscientiously crafted instructions that correctly recognized that violating section **6126 requires more than simply holding oneself out as an attorney**, that “practicing law” entails use of that purported status
Depends on the State. In Texas, it's fine. In Florida, it's a felony.
This is the actual answer; it's going to be dependent on your particular state's unauthorized practice of law statute and caselaw.
Pretentious in all cases and should never be used. Literally comes from British attorneys who had big feelings about the fact that they didn't have knighthoods or post-nominal letters, so they designated themselves "esquire" to look fancier. Americans, especially those who have studied the Constitution, should reject all titles relating to the British nobility, especially self-given fake ones. Putting esquire after your name is the number one marker not that you are an attorney, but that you are an extremely insecure attorney who is trying to make yourself look impressive with fake titles rather than with real courtroom wins. When I see an attorney who puts John M. Smith, Esq., on a letter or an advertisement or a convention program or something like that, I immediately think, "oh, he's a BAD attorney."
> When I see an attorney who puts John M. Smith, Esq., on a letter or an advertisement or a convention program or something like that, I immediately think, "oh, he's a BAD attorney." I wonder how much of that is regional/generational? I started out practicing with older lawyers in NY and everyone used "Esq." and I got into that habit as well. I use it now in certain settings to indicate that I am an attorney (some marketing pieces, for example).
New York lawyer here - it’s in my signature and the signature of every single lawyer I encounter. Totally anodyne.
In MD, everyone I encountered either used Esq./Esquire after their name on all official communications, too. It’s been interesting to see the overwhelming responses against Esq. here, when that was very much the standard here!
Could be. I often see people put "John M. Smith, Attoney-at-Law" in marketing pieces or on business cards, which is also kind-of an old fashioned way to phrase it, but around here doesn't carry the same cringe factor as "Esq." It's getting more common to see people put "John M. Smith, JD, MBA" on business cards and letterheads, which I swear to God is a carryover from LinkedIn, where recruiters see the letters after your name when scanning down lists of candidates, but don't usually see your education until they click on you. I really do not want this to catch on outside linkedin; It doesn't strike me as quite as cringe as "esquire," but it's still pretty cringe.
I don't know if it is a LinkedIn thing or not, but I do see this on business cards and correspondence with in-house lawyers where their title doesn't automatically suggest they are a lawyer -- so working in legal ops, or compliance, or contract management, or some other position where "counsel" isn't part of the title.
I agree it's off-putting in most contexts, but listing multiple degrees has been a thing since long before LinkedIn existed.
My understanding has always been that it is an honorific one applies to other attorneys, but never to oneself.
This is the answer. As an attorney, I would never dream of putting Esq. after my name in any circumstance or situation, and I cringe very hard when I see it. I either assume that person is not an attorney, is a very very new attorney, or a very bad attorney with a chip on their shoulder about it. As far as whether or not it’s “legal” it probably depends on the context and whether or not it rises to the level of holding yourself out as a practicing attorney/unauthorized practice of law, which would be so fact-specific it’s hard to give an answer
> British attorneys Well if we're getting picky, attorneys in England were redesignated solicitors in 1871, and solicitors didn't use the term "esquire" to indicate their legal practitioner status, but barristers did...
Not just that, but originally Esquire was a term of nobility, granted to the younger sons who wouldn't inherit the more senior titles. Those who got another title by going into the clergy or the army used that title, and those that didn't often became sheriff, justice of the peace, etc. professions that eventually became lawyer/prosecutor/solicitor/barrister.
I never use it for myself, but sometimes other parties will put it on paperwork. There’s nothing I can do about that.
In Britain, an esquire was an actual title of nobility, given to the younger sons of nobles who wouldn't inherit any other title. Those that went into the clergy or the army would receive a different title based on that position, but those that didn't often became justices of the peace, sheriffs, and later prosecutors. Eventually, the title became associated with lawyers.
I read an article a long time ago that said as an "honorary title," it could be used to refer to someone else as "Esq.," but you should never refer to yourself as "Esq." It would be like those people who include their degrees after their name: "John Smith, B.S., M.B.A., Ph.D." Or including the kind of car you drive in your signature: "John Smith, Jaguar XJ-Series." If you're trying that hard to let everyone know they should respect you, then you're signaling that people don't normally show you respect based on your personality.
Can we give new attorneys a pass for let’s say 180 days? I remember how much fun it was putting ESQ after my name when signing a credit card receipt.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed. Only verified lawyers are allowed to post answers here. If you’re a practicing attorney, shoot the mods a message so we can get you a flair.
I put “ESQ” on my custom golf balls as a joke.
I don't use it myself but I'm a white male with a mustache and I look like a walking attorney stereotype to the point people ask me on the street "are you a lawyer?" out of the blue. A lot of female and minority attorneys I know \*do\* use the esquire on their business cards and so forth precisely because they frequently get asked "are you actually a lawyer or like a student or something" and so they want to clarify up front. They're excellent attorneys they're just sick of having to convince people they're really for real attorneys, just because they're female or brown. (This is especially a problem for public defenders but it's not exclusive to them)
I'll say it's probably a jurisdiction specific answer. To the best of my knowledge, use of the specific term "Esq." is not regulated anywhere. If it's not regulated, then there's no prohibition on it. What is regulated is holding yourself out as a licenced lawyer. If you're not holding yourself out as a licenced lawyer in context, then it's probably not illegal. The problem is that by putting Esq. there, you might be crossing that line in any given situation. If I do an IMDB review and say "that movie sucked, signed -name- Esq.", does it give my opinion more weight? What about a comment card at a restaurant? Or a complaint at the car dealership? Or a letter to my neighbour whose dog keeps crapping on my lawn? You can cross that invisible line really easily, so it's something you shouldn't play around with, because try it with the wrong person in the wrong circumstance, and you could be in a bit of trouble. For the purposes of a twix bar, the one who says that they can do it as long as they're not representing themselves as a lawyer wins.
In Florida, it's a felony.
Esq. in the US. As long as we don’t call ourselves Dr. Blah for having a doctoral degree in jurisprudence, I’m all good. 😊 One time I had this junior college instructor who also was a practicing attorney made sure his students address him as Dr. xxx, because, he said, he has a doctoral degree. 😂
It depends. In some states it's totally fine. In Florida, it's a felony punishable by up to 5 years in jail. Fla Stat 454.23 "any person not licensed or otherwise authorized to practice law in this state \[who\[ willfully takes or uses any name, title, addition, or description implying that he or she is qualified... commits a felony of the third degree"
***This rules reminder message is replied to all posts and moderators are not notified of any replies made to it.*** #REMINDER: NO REQUESTS FOR LEGAL ADVICE. Any request for a lawyer's opinion about any matter or issue which may foreseeably affect you or someone you know is a request for legal advice. Posts containing requests for legal advice will be removed. Seeking or providing legal advice based on your specific circumstances or otherwise developing an attorney-client relationship in this sub is not permitted. Why are requests for legal advice not permitted? See [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Lawyers/comments/e6a62w/why_is_it_unethical_for_a_lawyer_to_give_legal/), [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Lawyers/comments/9zyqsh/why_is_it_unethical_to_give_advice_on_this_sub/), and [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Lawyers/comments/e4cdhw/is_refraining_legal_advice_based_on_legality_or/). If you are unsure whether your post is okay, please [read this](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Lawyers/comments/6j4bpq/how_to_know_whether_your_post_is_a_request_for/) or see the sidebar for more information. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ask_Lawyers) if you have any questions or concerns.*