Esquire--how does one obtain the title?
 

A fellow manager received an email and the writer had the title "Esq." after his name.

The body of the email was odd in itself but when I saw the signature and pointed it out, we both laughed and thought"oh this guy must be complete a$$hat".

So, how DOES one get to use that title in your name

Always thought it was associated with one who'd attained a JD; lawyers are the only ones that I can recall seeing using it.



Dueller....?

Google is your friend....

Esquire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Baz-it is but then I don't get the witty responses from the Pelican gang.SmileWavy

It is an old English term. Being older and being originally English when I was a young lad of about 10 yo sometimes I would receive mail addressed to my name followed by Esquire or Esq. for short. Esquire if you look at the word contains squire and in old English books they might refer to the Squire of the village. I have not googled it but now you have me thinking about it more.

Sign off recycled sixtie Esq.....sounds kind of stuffy. If folks are receiving mail like that in the US it means that the zombies have invaded already!

I thought you just had to buy one of those cheap watches.

I will save you the money. Bill Bek Esq.:):)

The title Genius by Trade has worked well for me. ;)

It's like a Telecaster, but without the neck pickup

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-1...2/IMG_4710.JPG

I googled it.
1. Comes from Middle Ages in the UK. It is a title above that of gentleman and below that of knight.
2. Or can come after a lawyer's name.:):)

I always preferred "all around bon vivant" over Esquire myself.

.....and I could have just googled it.





J/K Baz;)

I think you need to wear a pastel knitted sweater tied loosely around your shoulders while drinking nothing but blended rose' wine and wearing dock shoes with out socks...

Yours truly
Michael Johnathan Bresselaar (the III) Esquire.

The Honorable Esquires: What’s Right to Write?
by Patrick Thornton
Published: October 22nd, 2010

Long ago, in a land far far away, “Esquires” and “Honorables,” given social titles by birth or rank, ruled the land. The use of these titles has changed over time, especially in America. The American founders rejected the title system in US Const. Art. I Sec. 9 (8). Along with other grammatical gray (or grey in the U.K.) areas, the proper uses of the titles are often unknown, which causes, “Esquire” and “Honorable” to be used improperly by attorneys.

The Honorable John Esquire?
“The Honorable” and “Esquire” are honorifics, which are titles that were traditionally used to convey honor, respect, or the speaker’s inferior social rank. In the U.K. they may still be used, and often used interchangeably, to refer to a person’s social title. Americans use the terms to convey honor or respect today. The name prefix of “the Honorable” is placed at the beginning of a name and commonly abbreviated “the Hon.” “Esquire,” a name suffix, is placed at the end of a name. Given its use in America, it should almost always be abbreviated “Esq.” Never use both titles at the same time.

The Esquire
Traditionally, a person with the title of “Esquire” was of a social status one higher than Gentleman and one lower than Knight. The word derives from the term squire, which originally meant an apprentice or assistant to a knight. The term also developed to apply to men who owned land. The use of “Esq.” interchangeably with “Mr.” is the most common usage of the term in the U.K. today. In America, the term has always been associated with an attorney practicing law.

Putting “Esq.” or “Esquire” on a business card or in a signature block is common way of using the word. Common but incorrect. Just as some argue that attorneys are technically “doctors” because they have a doctorate degree, they should not confer such titles on themselves. “Esq.” should be used only when writing to a third person, e.g. addressing an envelope. When “Esq.” is used, it should always be abbreviated and never have an honorific at the beginning. “Mr. John Doe, Esquire” should be either “John Doe, Esq.” or “Mr. John Doe.”

Young lawyers who may not be licensed to practice yet and retired attorneys that are no longer practicing should be cautioned when using “Esq.” Because the American public associates the term with practicing attorneys, the use of “Esq.” by attorneys not authorized to practice law could violate the MPRC (see 4.1, 7.1, 7.4).

In the U.S., traditionally the title applied only to male attorneys, despite the fact that women have engaged in the practice of law since colonial times. Although both male and female attorneys use the title today, some people consider “Esq.” as inapplicable to women attorneys (in the U.K. the term officially only still applies only to men based on their social titles), while others disapprove of the use of “Esq.” because it reinforces traditional sexist customs, such as the idea that women should not practice law.

When drafting orders or findings, it is correct to write “Esq.” following the names of counsel because the document is attributed to a judge, a third party. But signing your motion as “John Doe, Esq.” is incorrect. A better practice is to write “Attorney at Law” following the names of counsel or yourself should you want or need a professional honorific stated.

The Honorable:
In America, “the Honorable” is applied to judges, retired judges, and certain elected officials. Most of the world uses “the Hon.” to refer to elected officials. Traditionally, it applied to sons and daughters of men of social title, such as Barons. It is a term only to be used by others when addressing the person worthy of the title. Thus, the term must never be used in a signature or signature block.

When drafting proposed Orders for a judge, do not write, “The matter came before the Honorable J. Doe” or put “Honorable J. Doe” in the signature block. While judges are certainly worthy of the title, because an order is attributed to the signatory judge and not the drafter, writing “the Honorable” in the order violates proper usage rules. Use “the Undersigned,” “Judge of District Court,” or “Judge John Doe” instead.

When using “the Honorable,” make sure there is a first name or initial between the term and the last name. The “the” in “the Honorable” is not capitalized when in the middle of a statement. For example, “the motion will be heard by the Honorable J. Doe” is correct. Also correct is addressing an envelope as “The Honorable J. Doe” rather than “the Honorable Doe.”

Conclusion:
Despite our founders’ efforts at abolishing social titles, “Esq.” and “the Hon.” have been adopted by the American legal community. Many traditional rules relating to social titles are obsolete, but the proper use of the honorifics in today’s world should still be adhered to.
Still confused? That’s ok. Most people use the honorifics incorrectly. But if you remember one thing to avoid misusing the honorifics, remember this: one should never impart an honorific on oneself.

Source: JDs Rising

Since the US is Constitutionally disallowed from granting titles, my take on it is that anyone who puts 'Esquire' after his name is simply full of himself.

I think that is true even if the Constitution had nothing about it.

Among lawyers, Esq is sort of a clubby term, like Elks lodge members who refer to each other as knight or esquire. I don't think anyone, but maybe the officious sort of 1st law student, takes it seriously.

Yeah Wayne.....I get that.

IOW - no good deed goes unpunished!

:)

Esquire technically, is not a title of nobility. in fact, it's an indication that there is no title of nobility for that person, else one would address him as "Sir" , not Esquire.
So technically it's not in conflict with the US constitution... Though i agree that anybody who uses it is full of it.

I don't know about that last sentence. I'd have to WAG that over half the letters ("commands") I get from attorneys have that Esq. suffix thrown in. Maybe that's to reinforce that I'm getting a letter from a lawyer, and not some clerk or secretary at the firm.