Dear Esquire,
As lawyers, we pride ourselves on using precise words in our writing and speech. That is why I am astounded by the frequent misuse of the word "esquire". I fully admit that I wrote "Esq." the first time I signed my name after being admitted to the Bar. I thought it was meaningful and a sign of personal accomplishment. I'm certain that AT&T thought the same thing when they looked at the signature on my check for the phone bill. I used the word, but I didn't know what the word meant. I was told that esquire was a synonym for lawyer. I went back to basics and picked up a dusty dictionary from the bookcase. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary the word "esquire" has the following definition:
• a member of the English gentry ranking below a knight, or
• a candidate for knighthood serving as shield bearer and attendant to a knight
I realized that there was no way I could consider myself landed gentry since I did 
not have a fiefdom in the States let alone Great Britain. I decided that I needed to stop referring to myself in such a manner or I might violate the Code of Chivalry. I saw Braveheart and did not want to be on the rack for my potential offense (offence) against the Crown.
Thankfully, Merriam-Webster gave me a way out by also defining the word as being "used as a title of courtesy usually placed in its abbreviated form after the surname <John R. Smith, Esq.>." I was saved. From that day on, I made sure I only used "esquire" to refer to another lawyer, not myself.
Comments (21)
Read through and enter the discussion by using the form at the endJaimie B. Field, Esq. - February 7, 2011 2:26 PM
Great post, Hayes. However, I believe I worked very hard to earn that "Esq" by graduating law school, passing the bar and being in good standing, why shouldn't I use it?
Technically as Juris Doctors, we are also entitled to use the term "Dr." aren't we?
Hayes Hunt - February 7, 2011 2:34 PM
Thanks Jamie. The US-UK Extradition Treaty does not include violations of the Code of Chivalry so you should be fine. Go for it. As for our J.D., I can imagine making a reservation under the name "Dr. Hunt". While eating dinner, somebody screams "my husband is choking! We need a Dr!" The hostess replies "Yes! Dr. Hunt!" I proudly stand up and announce "I'm a Doctor of Laws. Nobody panic." Which reminds me, I need to get certified in CPR and the Heimlich maneuver. Just things we should all know how to do.
Lisa Myers - February 7, 2011 6:47 PM
So interesting. I always thought "esquire" was over-the-top but I am sure that is because I am from the western United States and Canada. No attorneys in Washington State, California pr Alberta, Canada ever used "esquire" from what I remember. My mother, a well-respected attorney and executive director or a mediation firm in Spokane, Washington would certainly be laughed out of town for attaching such a title to her name.
I learned to use "esquire" religiously while working is politics in New Jersey - it was used as a sign of respect in the address portion of any invite or letter (and more likely it was used to convey how much we thought the addressee could afford to donate -being landed gentry and all)
John McArdle - February 9, 2011 8:58 AM
Hayes, think it through. Once you get certified, so is created the "duty to rescue"...........and the increased malpractice premium ("but he said he was a Dr.!").
Hayes Hunt - February 9, 2011 9:00 AM
John, Great timing. http://www.pocononews.net/news/2011/February/08/08Feb11-2.html
HARRISBURG - Senator Lisa Baker joined representatives of the American Heart Association to celebrate "Save a Heart Day" and announce legislation she has introduced to change Pennsylvania's Good Samaritan law.
Currently, bystanders who perform CPR on sudden cardiac arrest victims and businesses offering automatic external defibrillators are at risk of being sued when trying to act as Good Samaritans. Baker's bill would remove this barrier.
"The fear of a lawsuit discourages people from intervening or businesses from having critical equipment readily available," Baker said. "This bill will encourage businesses to have an AED on hand and encourage citizens to administer CPR when there are no medical professionals on the scene."
John McArdle - February 9, 2011 9:03 AM
Ha - maybe I should buy a lottery ticket...I'm teaching Business Law and Ethics this semester, and worked this into my seminar this evening - thanks!
Hayes Hunt - February 9, 2011 9:05 AM
That's Great John. Reminded me of Peter Singer on duty to give/act: if I am walking past a shallow pond and see a child drowning in it, I ought to ... http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/charity/duty_1.shtm
Jaimie B. Field, Esq. - February 9, 2011 9:11 AM
Interesting conversation. Made me think of the British Grandmother who stopped a jewel heist yesterday (see video) BTW - she actually thought she was stopping a group of thugs from beating up a young man.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-viral-video-granny-foils-robbery,0,4304986.htmlstory
Did she have a duty to do so?
Hayes Hunt - February 9, 2011 10:22 AM
You can't legislate heroism. Assume her belief that the young man was being assaulted by a gang was reasonable. She acted in the defense of others which justifies her hitting the guy like a whack-a-mole. She acted legally and, more importantly, chose heroic action. Thanks for the interesting video Jaimie.
She also probably got more confident after watching the guy fail to break any glass with the sledgehammer.
Kathryn Arogundade | Solicitor - February 9, 2011 11:04 AM
There is no general duty to intervene, however there are some duties imposed by statute or arising from common law e.g. the duty of a constable to prevent crime or a parent to care for a child.
Omissions.
Save in exceptional circumstances the criminal law imposes no obligation on persons to act so as to prevent the occurrence of harm or wrongdoing. There is no general duty to prevent the commission of crime. Omission to act in a particular way will give rise to criminal liability only where a duty so to act arises at common law or is imposed by statute. Such a duty is exceptional at common law and the
criminal law does not ordinarily require a person to be his brother's
keeper.
Mark Satawa - February 9, 2011 2:45 PM
Amen to that. Next, we'll start using words like irregardless and resiliency.
Min Suh - February 9, 2011 3:16 PM
What a great article! I've meaning to write one for the past 15 years. Before I used "Esquire" upon passing the bar, I research the word origin and found the same meaning. Hence, I have never used "esquire" after my name and correct other attorneys who often do. Offensively, these attorneys continue use the title "Esquire".
Joe Conley - February 10, 2011 9:46 AM
I always thought "that was pedantry up with which we will not put" (to paraphrase a famous Englishman who knew something about language). Also, I thought it was an ethics offense to use the title "Dr."
John McArdle - February 10, 2011 10:14 AM
What a great video! As to the existence of a duty, I suppose it depends on how you structure the concept of "duty." In the ethics classes I teach, the underlying construct we use is a multi-layered one:
Level one: legal - the societal standard - set by laws generally constructed by a political body reflecting some sense of shared collective will;
Level Two: ethical - the organizational standard - set by the formal and informal policies, practices and prejudices of an organization or sub-culture reflecting some shared collective understanding (and these can be positively or negatively connoted "ethics");
Level Three: moral - the personal standard - what does your moral code dictate (or what would your mom or grandmother say if she knew...generally assumed to be a positive connotation)
The class dynamic usually discusses a legal standard as a moral minima, the ethical one as enlightened self interest, and the moral one as moral maxima or a reflection of higher order ethics.
Applying this rubric, according to the barrister across the pond there's no affirmative duty in England, and the response of others in the crowd would tend to support a "Kitty Genovese" ethical standard in that community (Jamie's point - notice they only helped after the guy fell off the scooter, and the cameraman never did - what has TMZ made us into?!?). Grandmom sprinting across the lane and wielding her handbag like a cudgel would suggest a deeply rooted moral authority that might not reflect that community standard was at play - "stop, you hooligans, or I'll have a pop at you," followed by grousing about the state of the empire at the pub later on.
LDMort - February 12, 2011 10:48 AM
English lawyers were landed gentry for most part. King sent them business
and work in the royalty courts.
Now being in the educational elite makes lawyers gentry because they
have upward mobility, without necessarily having wealth.
Esq. to me is simply gentleman or female equivalent.
Mr. Robert Peter Kuijper (LL.M) - March 2, 2011 8:27 AM
How much easier - tough a bit complicated - is it for attorneys in the Netherlands.(and Belgium)
The Dutch and Belgian academic title for a law graduate 'meester' (or master of laws, since 2009), is unique as graduates in all other fields of science become either
'doctorandus' (PHD) or 'ingenieur' (engineer --> mathematics, IT, architecture).
The meester/master of law title may furthermore only used by law graduates with a university degree, while law graduates from hogescholen (law)) colleges) become bachelors of law, misuse of these titles is punishable by law.
The same is true for the professional title of 'advocaat' (attorney (at law)) which may only be used by those who actually passed the bar and remain members of the Dutch or Belgian Bar Association (which allows the practice in the field of criminal law, major claims, the Court of Appeals, and the supreme Court). All other law graduates who practice law (yet as a matter of law may not practice in the aforementioned fields of law) may only use the professional title 'jurist' or 'fiscalist' ((tax) lawyer).
For those who may frequently contact Dutch attorneys in the future, the classic
'meester' (abbreviated mr.) is used before ones name, the new title of 'master of laws' , much like academic titles in the Anglo-Saxon system, (LL.M) follows it.
P.S.
One can become of doctor of law (or any other science), through extensive post academic study, but this is a superior academic title, often, not always, combined with a professorship (As far as I know no equivalent exists outside the Netherlands and Belgium).
Peter - October 17, 2011 2:52 PM
I am an attorney licensed to practice law in Ohio. I work on a daily basis in New Jersey, but that work is not legal work. I do not represent clients, and I do not represent my employer in the capacity of an attorney. If I use Esq. or J.D. after my name on a letter, the body of an email, in my email address, or on a business card, is that considered to be "holding myself out to be an attorney" in New Jersey? Have there been any "ethics opinions" in New Jersey on this matter?
Hayes Hunt - October 17, 2011 3:21 PM
Peter,
I would refer you to the NY Ethics Committee. I would be reluctant to use "Esq." under the circumstances you describe. Easier to drop it.
Anonymous - November 9, 2011 7:24 PM
The term Doctor was first used to identify Lawyers and then passed on to other professional uses e.g. Physicians. The title JD was used in place of the original LLB to enable lawyers to qualify for higher pay scales in government occupations where advanced degrees merited higher pay than did bachelor degrees.
JB - June 13, 2012 6:30 PM
I practiced in Michigan where many lawyers used, Atty. before their name and as an appellation, such as Atty. Jones. It's a great substitute for "doctor".
Vijay Damaraju - June 15, 2012 4:01 PM
Thank you Prof. John McArdle for your excellent analysis of concept of duty with three levels (legal, ethical, and moral), I really like the way you simplified it.