Talk:Esquire

Military rank

Just to point out there is an almost direct contradiction in the 'typical definitions' of an Esquire. Namely that one has to have Captain rank or equivalent or higher in point 14 but yet is open to all officers in point 17.195.92.40.49 11:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Banks, Masters of Arts, Freemasons, Clergy

• First, which banks accord any of their clients the designation, "Esq."? My bank has always called me "Mr ----- -----".

• Secondly, somebody I know in the College of Arms has said that (at least some) Masters of Arts are esquires. I asked what he thought qualified somebody as an esquire and he listed sons of peers and knights, officers in the armed forces, and certain office-holders. I pointed out that I knew that he regarded a certain mutual acquaintance as an esquire, despite his not fulfilling any of those criteria. "Why is he an esquire?", I asked. "Because of his degree". The degree in question was MA (Cantab). I think that Cambridge MAs are therefore considered esquires. Presumably MAs of at least some other universities are also considered to count as esquires. I once read somewhere about a supposed equivalence between university degrees and social rank. I think it may have been BA=gentleman, master=esquire, doctor=knight. I don't know where BD, BCL, BM, BMus (etc) would fit. Bear in mind this was back in the days of DD, DCL, DM, DMus, so doctor does not include DPhil/PhD (but might include DSc and DLitt, even though I think they are more recent innovations).

• Thirdly, since when have Freemasons been regarded as esquires? I've never heard of that one.

• Fourthly, (a) remember that clergymen are never gentlemen or esquires, but clerks in holy orders; (b) are any of the sons of bishops considered to be esquires? A bishop ranks above a baron, and an archbishop ranks above a duke, so it would make sense, although bishoprics aren't (usually) hereditary, so maybe not.

--Oxonian2006 02:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Crumbs, Oxonian, that's a lot of questions!

On point one, Lloyd's Bank and Royal Bank of Scotland have designated me Esquire.

On point two, I have seen a College of Arms "Memorial" (or petition) which designated the husband of the petitioner (an Oxford MA and a barrister) as "Esquire", followed by a Grant of Arms which reduced him to "Gentleman". That suggests that official policy is more conservative than the conversation you report.

On point three, although I have no doubt that Freemansons accord all sorts of titles and dignities to each other amongst themselves, there is no official rank accorded to them.

On point four, a clergyman can certainly be a gentleman - and a knight too, if so appointed. So I don't see why a clergyman shouldn't be an Esquire. But since I can't envisage a mode of address appropriate to a clergyman in which "Esq" would figure, perhaps you are right.

Cheers Chelseaboy 17:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

---

I've had one business letter from the UK which referred to me as "Esq." I called the embassy and they said it was common for business letters. This was in the 1980's. Occasionally, I've received formal invitations addressed as "esquire," but it's uncommon and generally considered a bit pretentious.

I have never heard, or seen in the literature, that a Freemason is entitled to the style of esquire. I do not believe that is correct.

--J. J. in PA 17:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Last night, I checked the transactions of the Quator Coronati Lodge, A well known research lodge in London. They list the full members in each volume. I looked in two volumes published about 18 years appart. While [usually past] Masonic positions, professional and academic titles are listed, no one is listed as an "Esquire," including those without any other pre or post nominal designation.

The evidence seems to be against Freemasons automatically being styled as Esquire. There is apparently a degree called "Esquire" in some appendant bodies, but it is not the title.

I suggest removal of Freemasons from the list, based on that.

--J. J. in PA 17:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Freemasons do not use the term Esquire to refer to themleves, or to other Freemasons, except by mistake or lack of knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Svanslyck (talk • contribs) 01:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Is armiger a title for those with a coat of arms? eg. John Smith Armiger?

It's not a formal title, more a description - an armiger is one who has (is entitled to bear) a coat of arms. In the UK, armigerousness is historically regarded as a sufficient (but not necessary) condition for the rank of Gentleman. Nicholas Jackson 23:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Is the fact that there's an electric guitar called "Esquire" even remotely relevant or noteworthy? Proteus (Talk) 23:19, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the reference to a Bachelor of Physics should be to a Bachelor of Physic (Physic being the old word for Medicine). It makes a lot more sense in this context as Physic is one of the old academic subjects along with Law and Divinity. It is also important for the understanding of the article to note that these are all traditionally postgraduate degrees following the old system of B.A. - M.A. - LL.B./B.C.L./B.D. etc.

30 Mar 2005

Charles Boutell's book English Heraldry adds `Masters of Arts' to the list of qualifying persons. At the time Boutell was writing (in the late 19th century) the MA was essentially the full undergraduate university degree (as it still is at Oxford, Cambridge and the four ancient Scottish universities). Then London started treating it as a postgraduate qualification requiring additional study, and everywhere else followed suit. So, I'd argue that these days, in the UK, any (male) university graduate (and certainly one with a postgraduate qualification) is entitled to the style Esq. Nicholas Jackson 23:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by "entitled". As the article notes, almost any male may be designated "Esquire" as a matter of politeness, respect or courtesy in the UK at the present day. (In the US it seems to be specific to lawyers). If, however, you refer to the more formal rank recognised by the English heralds, I do not think you are correct. Any graduate will, for practical purposes, be allowed a Grant of Arms, but this will record a (male) grantee with the rank of gentleman, not esquire, unless he qualifies as an esquire on some other basis, such as an office in which he is so designated by the Crown. Chelseaboy 14:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Style of esq.

What would be the way of styling "Mr. & Mrs. John Smith," if, in the US, one or both partners were lawyers? Is there a proper way of doing this without separating the two names?

23 Dec 2005

There is no different way of writing that in the United States. Although the Juris Doctor degree is a doctorate, lawyers never use the courtesy title "Dr." before their names, and only those who do use the title "Dr." alter their styling to such things as "Dr. and Mrs. John Smith." Lawyers would simply write "Mr. and Mrs. John Smith" even if one or both spouses are lawyers. Only when writing their names individually would they append "Esq." CoramVobis 20:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it not a violation of the US constitution to hold a title?

Article I, Section 8 reads: "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state."

11 Jan 2006

"Holding any profit or trust" is the key phrase, it means that public officials and employees can't hold titles or honors except with the consent of congress. Congress for their part has legislated rules for what can and can't be accepted and by whom. The American use of esquire is not granted by a foriegn anything, it is simply a courtesy title which attorneys have become accustomed to assuming, If it has any conferring authority at all beyond the individual lawyer concerned, it would be in an abstract sense the state bar association or the US court system.

(in response to the initial question on "title") Short answer: hogwash. Esquire as used by American lawyers doesn't mean a person holds the "title" being referred to above. For further reading, see reading comprehension. --- Bobak 02:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Especially since there's no king, prince, or foreign state involved! Doops | talk 00:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Distinction between Mr and Esq no longer generally understood in UK

The article says: "The use of Esquire (as Esq.) had become pervasive in the United Kingdom by the late 20th century, for example being applied by banks to all men who did not have a grander title. Although the College of Arms continues to restrict use of the word Esquire in official grants of arms to some (not even all) of those in the table above, it uses the term Esquire in all its correspondence, even to those who do not fall within any of the definitions in the table. Most people in the United Kingdom no longer appreciate that there is any distinction between "Mr" and "Esquire" at all and so, for practical purposes and in everyday usage, there is no such distinction." Sources have been called for. I suggest (1) The first sentence (indiscriminate use of Esquire by banks) (2) The second sentence (indiscriminate use of Esq by College of Arms in correspondence) (3) The thread on an English genealogy forum entitled Good Question?! Esquire or Mr?! What's the difference? None!?. (4) The thread on a student forum which contains such statements about Esquire as "It's just an old fashioned way instead of saying Mr isn't it?" and "It's used to replace Mr on official documents and in formal correspondence" and "Esquire is just the male equivalent of Miss - it's a polite form of address that no-one really bothers with anymore that applies to men without other titles. My brother always gets it on his bank statements."

Editor Wales has now asked me for a source for the College of Arms point. I offer this post by Dan Phoenix, who refers in other posts to having worked at the College of Arms, and says "Whenever I have correspondence with the College of Arms, I'm always given the Esq. after my name, and I understand that's pretty common." Cheers. Chelseaboy 15:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the header has a great deal of truth to it. Certainly the proliferation of an lapse of principal in one generation, may thus manifest itself into the misguided, however, popular opinion in the next generation. The sources to which you refer, are not systamatic nor comprehensive, and represent at the very most, a small collection of opinions. If you arrived at the same form of conclusions, utilizing the same analysis, and posted your opinions, on a different article, lets say, aborortion, etc., you may find that you would be met with the same spirit of resistance. With this said, It may be prudent to first consult with the heraldic authority on this subject, the college of arms, to discover thier opinion and position, and to confirm the above. This would prove a sound basis to support further opinions, weither popular or unpopular. It would be facinating to discover, who, first elected to self elevate themself, or thier associates with the grander title of Esquire. By this same example, people today could very well find it fashionable to style themselves, Dr instead of Mr, or alternatively Esq., instead of Dr and vice versa. This misuse could be further sanctioned, provided that the population was ignorant or simply lacked the necessary respect to acknowledge the distinction. If a Mr is considered the same as an Esquire, then by this same reasoning or example, it may be plausibe to suggest, that an esquire or even a Mr., can now find a precedent should one find it fashionabe to style himself a kt. or knight, and a knight a baron, Lord, and so on. If popular opinion or ignorance finds the planet earth to be flat, and you subscribe to this 'fact', then you have in essence perpetuated the common truth, contrary to its fidelity, and sound principal. Today I with 25 associates, who reside within the U.K., and have queried thier opinion on this topic. From the returns that I have received so far, it would be fair to recommend, that you conduct further research into this matter, before assuming that many people in the U.K., consider Mr and Esquire the same. Moreover, it would be fair to appraise that the use or "abuse" of the title of Esquire, during the last two centuries, is a clear example of misapplication, as the title has been literally in a state of, usurpation, held hostage, by the fruits of ignorance and or the ambitions of the corrupt. Mr. Wales

I'm sure we can agree that there is always a tension between prescribed rules and common practice, certainly in matters of everyday title and language. Usually, common practice wins! I have provided you with a named source from within the College of Arms. I have also provided a number of other randomly culled sources which all verify the passage you keep reverting. Please provide verifiable references to the contrary (a poll of 25 unnamed people in an unnamed office is not verifiable and is original research, you also do not say what they say, i.e. the result of your original research). You seem to accept "the header has a great deal of truth in it" so presumably you would accept an edit which said: "Distinction between Mr and Esq no longer generally understood in UK", or words to that effect? If so, I will do something along those lines. I'm sure we can find common ground and improve the article. Generally, reversion does not improve the Wiki. I would also like you to reconsider the compromise wording which I offered (changing just one word of your edit). Best wishes. Chelseaboy 11:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I messed up in my edit summary, and meant to refer to WP:3RR, not WPP:3RR which doesn't exist. Sorry! Best, Chelseaboy 11:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Alternative for Jr, Third, ect

I remeber reading somewhere the 'Esquire' was a way of differenciating between generaltions. Ie. In a family you fould have -John Doe Esq, followed by -John Doe Jr, followed by -John Doe III, and So one, Esquire simply being another term for senior.

Is this just my imagination, or has anyone else heard this?

Keeperoftheseal 00:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It would seem a v odd way of doing it as the latter two make the Esq on the first redundant. There are/were two traditional ways: at public school Esq (if used at all) was for the father and the children were Doe ma (maximus) Doe mi (minimus) or major/minor depending on the number of brothers, the former for >2 the latter for 2. In non titled families it used to be the case that if the Esq was used it was by the father, the eldest son would be Mr Doe (as the eldest did not need to differentiate himself) and each other brother was Mr ChristianName Doe. The same would be true for daughters.Alci12 10:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Esquires in the Elks

Odd there is no mention of the office of Esquire in the B.P.O. Elks. He is the equivalent of the Seargent-at-arms, carrying out the orders of thr Exalted Ruler and generally enforcing protocol. He also has certain ritual functions for opening and closing a meeting.

This looks rather incomplete?

Isn't this the tale end of a more interesting hierarchy? There were/are other ranks below Gent, were there not? I thought you could not be a "Gent" if you were in trade, and even below that was Yeoman freeman etc? Mr wasn't the same as "Gent" either was it? We were taught all this in school but I am not sure they teach it any more. --BozMo talk 15:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Esquire or Squire

This article and Squire are strongly overlapping - see Talk:Squire#A lot of over-lap with Esquire..., Blowup 09:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Bill S. Preston

"Characters who have utilized the title Esquire (without the aforementioned merit) include such personages as Bill S. Preston, "Esquire""

How do we know he is not so entitled - he could be the male line descendant of a peers younger son or knight. It could be said that he is American, and thus such claims under U.K. law no longer apply, in which case he is just as entitled to style himself esuire as any American lawyer :-). - Matthew238 05:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

To be clear on the UK point, these titles are not a matter of "law" at all, even when applied formally. It is more question of formal usage and informal usage. Westmorlandia (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

United States

"just as Mr. should not be assumed" -- what does that mean? The phrase is nonsensical to me. Anyway, in the United States, it is common (actually, universal) that any adult male would be called "Mr. (last name)" in formal discourse with strangers (although if a person were known to have an appropriate degree or profession, a title such as "Dr." or "Professor" could be used). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.129.45 (talk) 24 May 2007

In the U.S., 'Esq.' is used socially far less oftsocially en than one would think from the article. The British use of it is rare and archaic here. Esq. is used by attorneys (men and women) professionally, and some do use it as well. An American non-attorney demanding that people add esq. at the end of his name would be laughed at. No matter its (or his) origins, it would be seen as pretentious here. I'd like to change that section of the article (I'd leave the naval exception alone), but I'll wait for other comments in case it would be contentious. Ariadne55 (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, anyone, lawyer or not, "demanding that people add esq. at the end of his name would be laughed at" in the United States. Today in the United States even the President is routinely addressed by his first name by people with the most passing connections to him. For better or worse, the days when you did not address people by their first names unless you were close friends (or social superiors) are long gone. In such a climate, anyone insisting on being addressed by a title, be it "Esq.," "Dr.," or even plain "Mr." or "Mrs." is going to be laughed at and considered pretentious. That is the way things are today. (Admittedly, people rarely laugh in other people's faces so perhaps aspiring Esquires do not realize that they are the objects of mirth.) Frankly this article reads like it was written by a bunch of recent law school graduates, or even high school kids aspiring to be lawyers, desperate to obtain respect for themselves. In my experience, it is only very junior lawyers (or their proud parents) who ever ask anyone to refer to them as "Esq." and they are laughed at by their own secretaries for the pretention. In my opinion, the key points with regard to United States usage are: 1) that anyone can legally be referred to as an "Esq." or "Esquire;" 2) the term is most frequently encountered among practicing lawyers; and 3) despite the association with lawyers, "Esquire" does not mean that someone is licensed to practice law. In professional situations (and on letterhead) people who want to indicate that they are licensed to practice law refer to themselves as: 1) a lawyer; 2) an attorney-at-law; or 3) by using some other designation that unambiguously indicates that they are practicing members of the bar. The increasingly common practice among government agencies, insurance companies, and others who routinely write to lawyers is to use the form of address "Attorney John Smith" or "Attorney Jane Smith," As a traditionalist, I do not like this practice, but it does solve the problem of giving lawyers the special title some of them seem to need without engaging in endless arguments over the usage of Esquire. Further, it allows a note of formality "Dear Attorney Smith" without the need to determine the gender of the person you are addressing. (I still do not like it, but that, is life.) Johnwilliammiller (talk) 06:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above. I'm over fifty, and remember when John Smith, Esq., was not-too-uncommonly seen on formal letters addressed to average Americans instead of Mr. John Smith, but not until the 1990s did I ever hear anyone _ask_ to be called Esquire, and it would have been considered laughably pretentious to do so. Sometime in the late '80s or early '90s, it became a fad (still continuing) among lawyers to use the term for themselves and occasionally act as if others are obliged to use it of them. Johwilliammiller may underestimate the number and age of the lawyers involved, but he is right that the practice is considered just as pretentious from a lawyer as from anyone else. The most common American attitude is, Anyone can call himself an Esquire, but why would he want to? 209.181.57.144 (talk) 08:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• It is true Lawyers took the title esquire onto themselves. It wasn't granted by any governmental authority. The editor's edit summary comment is also true, however. Having taken the title, regulatory bodies (California is cited in this example) have placed a reservation on it. But that doesn't disturb how lawyers originally got the title. Some citation is needed re the California reference, though, as well as to support the "many jurisdictions" statement that was made in the edit summary. kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 13:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I have other issues pertaining to the section titled "United States", particularly with the first 5 or 6 paragraphs. Not only can they all be condensed into one or two paragraphs, as they say the same thing over and over, but the last paragraph in question, beginning with "In short,..." is completely against Wikipedia standards. There is no reason for it to be preachy, suggestive, or otherwise imply either consequences or recommended behavior regarding the use of esquire in the U.S.--71.237.73.127 (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems as if it has no legal basis whatsoever, rather like "Grand Wizard".86.42.219.9 (talk) 12:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Female Attorneys

It seems to be the current practice that female attorneys are styled "Esquire," just like male attorneys. J. J. in PA 00:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I take it you're responding to the question asked by an anonymous editor in the edit summary. Doops | talk 04:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, shouldn't I? J. J. in PA 21:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely! I just thought that people who came along to the page and saw your answer might be curious to know what prompted it. :) Doops | talk 21:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Although I know this to be usual and customary, have we a source? 69.140.152.55 (talk) 07:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

—–––A —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.21.71 (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The first two clearly do. The third is ambiguous, but it doesn't indicate a gender distinction.

http://www.taft.cc.ca.us/newTC/Academic/LiberalArts/OWL/forms_of_address.htm

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001618.html

http://szotar.sztaki.hu/webster/info/thesa/4.style-book/style.6.htmld/ It is pretentious for US legal professionals of either sex to unilaterally adopt an outmoded British form of address simply because they envy the British Honours system that existed for centuries before their nation was created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.30.36 (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

J. J. in PA (talk) 01:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Meaningless vs. Meaningful

I tried to strike a balance between "meaningful" and "meaningless" by using "little social distinction."

J. J. in PA (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Eldest sons of younger sons of peers...

I was wondering, if the eldest son of a younger son of a peer is granted the postnomial Esquire, would this pass to his next brother on his death. Say Lord John Smith, younger son of Bill Smith, Duke of Somewhere, has a son; he would be Charles Smith, Esq. Lord John has a second son, plain old David Smith. Now what if Charles Smith, Esq. dies? Would his "Esq." pass on to David as the eldest living son of Lord John?

Sorry if this is confusing, just an American trying to understand the system :)

Thanks, Prsgoddess187 16:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I would think so, assuming that Charles doesn't have a child, or at least a son. David would then be the eldest son of Lord John. The way I've seen this type of style used, it is "perpetual succession." My guess is that Lord John would have to be living for David to be the oldest son, as opposed to the "surviving" son.

I hope that someone more familiar with this might pop in with a more authoritative answer. J. J. in PA (talk) 05:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as above. Perpetual succession in the above context is the standard remainder heirs male of the body lawfully begotten. ie to Lord John's sons A/B/C the succession is A, A1 (where 1 is As eldest son) A1a (A1s eldest son) failing which to A2, A2a etc failing which to B1,2,3 then C 123 forever. AllsoulsDay (talk) 15:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

All children (male or female) of Peers are styled "The Honourable" as in The Honourable John or Jane Smith,usually written as The Hon, The only exception is if the Peer has other titles,in this case the eldest son takes the lesser title as a courtesy title with no privelidges attatched, Esquire does not enter into this.94.196.39.48 (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Other exceptions to this include younger sons and daughters of dukes, who are styled "Lord Firstname Lastname" and "Lady Firstname Lastname" (for example Lord Peter Wimsey and Lady Helen Wimsey, younger son and daughter of the Duke of Denver). Anyway, this question isn't about younger children of peers, it's about the eldest sons of younger children of peers. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 07:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The Queen

The Queen's website is www.royal.gov.uk. Googling this search phrase: Ms -sclerosis site:royal.gov.uk returns 81 results. The phrase is used in Buckingham palace press releases and the Court Circular. Here are two recent examples:

Press Releases & Speeches, 13 April 2008, in which Her Majesty appoints Ms Bryce as the Governor-General of Australia.

Court Circular, 7 March 2006, which states, "The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh gave a State Banquet this evening in honour of The President of the Federative Republic of Brazil and Senhora Lula da Silva... The following had the honour of being invited: ... Ms. Jane Lichtenstein and Ms. Rhona Shaw... Ms. Susan Catchpole... Ms. Christina Oiticica... [and] Ms. Roberta Marquez". Ariadne55 (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Gender for US and Freemasons

First, masons, I recieve letters from the grand lodge of england which read "Esq" at the end as well as the summons from our main lodge which also uses the suffix. And, there are many "official" masons titles but esq is used for all bretheren.

Second, on the subject of US gender.

In the UK as the article suggests, the title is reserved for men. I reiceved a letter from a US solicitor who is female who uses the term Esq.

Isnt that a bit like a woman calling herself Sir? Is it normal practice in the US for women to assume this title? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.95.21 (talk) 10:08, 18 September, 2008 (UTC)

In the U.S., the suffix esq. doesn't mean sir, it means attorney, just as Dr. means doctor. It's not something an attorney assumes, it's something her state bar association grants to her. It's how her colleagues, the courts, and anyone who does business with her will routinely refer to her. In the U.S., this is standard practice to such an extent that it would look like a typo to omit it. By the way, new sections should go at the bottom of the talk page. Using the New Section tab at the top of the page should format it that way for you in future. Ariadne55 (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting - thanks for this. Suppose that I, a British gentleman and university graduate (and therefore arguably entitled to the style Esq in the UK), but not a qualified lawyer of any sort, were to visit the US and happen to use the suffix Esq there. Could I be prosecuted for misrepresentation? Do the state bars claim sole right to grant this suffix in the US, or are they just the only organisations which currently do? This is entirely a hypothetical question, by the way - I'm not expecting to visit the US in the near future, and I don't write Esq after my name anyway - I'm just curious as to the exact legal standing of the term in the US. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You could visit the U.S. and sign Esq. after your name, or anything else you liked (King Nicholas of Jacksonia) as long as there was no intent to defraud anyone. However, if you presented yourself with the honorific Esq. and then gave what a reasonable person would hear as legal advice, you might be criminally or civilly liable for practicing law without a license. The state bars don't have any control over non-lawyers. The state bars' ethics committees that have dealt with the usage of esq. were primarily concerned with regulating how lawyers used "Esq." in non-legal business dealings where it could mislead others. I've been wondering, in the UK, if barristers use "Esq." after their names, but there's an aversion to using "Esq." for women, what do women barristers do? Ariadne55 (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah ok, that makes sense, thanks. So I guess it's more or less analogous to how the title Dr is used, in both the UK and the US: in formal situations and on official paperwork I'm Dr Jackson (I have a PhD in pure mathematics) but I'm generally careful not to let anyone mistake me for a qualified physician - indeed, I could be prosecuted if I knowingly or deliberately misrepresented myself thus. Barristers in the UK don't generally tend to use Esq after their name, except insofar as any professional man might in a formal context. Women don't use Esq, in exactly the same way that women don't call themselves Mr. There isn't really a specific postnominal that marks one as being a lawyer, except for law degrees like LLB or LLM, or QC (for very senior barristers and, recently, very senior solicitors). -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Response to Ariadne55's comments at 16:04 on 18 September 2008 (UTC) The following is personal opinion and should not be construed as (and is not intended to be) legal advice. "Esq." does not mean attorney. It is an abbreviation for "Esquire," just as "Dr." is an abbreviation for "Doctor." Further, state bar associations do not grant the title "esquire" to anyone, they are not in the business of granting titles. Perhaps in your neck of the woods using "Esq." after a lawyer's name is "standard practice to such an extent that it would look like a typo to omit it" but that is not the case everywhere. As I noted in response to your comments under United States above, it is increasingly common for government agencies and businesses to write to lawyers using the form of address "Attorney John Smith" or "Attorney Jane Smith" and to continue the letter with "Dear Attorney Smith" with no "esquire" to be seen. Practice varies from place to place. In some parts of the country "Esq." is still routinely applied to distinguished gentlemen in the community with no implication that they are lawyers. In other places, no one would think of using "Esq." for a non-lawyer. The important point is that using "esq." for lawyers is a social usage, and, despite some people's belief, it is not legally exclusive. Similarly, the widely held idea that when you say "Dr." you mean physician is false. The honorific "Dr." in front of a name means you have a doctorate in something. That might be, and often is, medicine, but it could be any subject. A person who wants people to know that he practices medicine uses the term "M.D." or some variation, or states that he is a physician. A person who wants people to know he is a practicing lawyer, calls himself something specific such as "lawyer," or "attorney-at-law." If you call yourself "John Smith, Esq." you might be taken for a lawyer but you might equally be taken for a pompous twit. Finally, let us be clear about something. A person who introduces himself as "John Smith, Esq." and then "gave what a reasonable person would hear as legal advice" is no more likely to be prosecuted for practicing law without a license than a Ph.D. who introduces himself as "Dr. John Smith" is to be prosecuted for practicing medicine without a license because some reasonable person heard him talk about curing the common cold. Both fraud and practicing a profession without a license require more action. A person who opens an office, puts "John Smith, Esquire" on the door, and starts preparing legal documents for a fee is likely to be in trouble and the "Esq." might well constitute evidence that he was attempting to pass himself off as a licensed lawyer. Even so there is the possibility of ambiguity. If "John Smith, Esq." is a licensed real estate agent, and the door says "John Smith, Esq., Real Estate Agent," and the legal documents he prepares are limited to the standard real estate forms that real estate agents are legally permitted to prepare, is he practicing law without a license? If I walk into a PhD. college professor's office with a door that says "Dr. John Smith" and when he sees a rash on my hand he declares "you have poison ivy, go get some lotion for it" has he practiced medicine without a license? Would it matter in that case whether I wrongly thought he was a medical doctor. My point is just that the idea that "Esq." is only for lawyers and anyone else using it is liable to be criminally prosecuted is just plain wrong. People who call themselves "John Smith Esq." with the intent to pass themselves off as lawyers and who then perform acts constituting the practice of law without a license, are risking criminal prosecution. The reality is that most, if not all, prosecutions for practicing law without a license fall into one of five categories: 1) people licensed in one jurisdiction practicing in another jurisdiction where they are not licensed; 2) paralegals working without the supervision of a licensed lawyer (often these are people who once worked under a licensed lawyer and then continued working on their own); 3) suspended or disbarred lawyers continuing to practice despite the loss of their license; 4) licensed lawyers who fail to pay their bar dues or otherwise keep their license in good standing but continue to practice; or 5) law school graduates practicing without being admitted to the bar. People unaffliated with the legal profession tacking "Esquire" onto their name and being mistaken (willfully or not) for lawyers is just not a major problem. A person performing legal services without proper authority is violating the law regardless of the use or non-use of "Esq." Johnwilliammiller (talk) 07:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

In my experience in the U.S., "Esq." is often used when sending written correspondence in reply to a letter from a young man (i.e., a younger teenager). At least in my own experience. Svanslyck (talk) 23:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It also bears repeating, as stated above, that "If you call yourself 'John Smith, Esq.' you might be taken for a lawyer but you might equally be taken for a pompous twit." Some lawyers would be well served to know this. Svanslyck (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Ohio Supreme Court

The Ohio Supreme Court is the licensing authority of attorneys in Ohio (as opposed to the bar association as in some other states). As others have mentioned, and as the article states, it does not "grant" the title esquire to anyone. In 2010, however, and possibly earlier, it did specifically deny use the title in its order in a case involving the unauthorized practice of law. See Disciplinary Counsel v. Brown Svanslyck (talk) 01:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting - thanks very much for this. I have no legal training or qualifications myself, but from a quick read of the document you linked to, I'm inclined to interpret it as the Ohio Supreme Court saying "you've used the suffix Esq so as to represent yourself as a licensed attorney, which you're not, so we're now issuing an injunction preventing you specifically from using it at all" rather than "the suffix Esq means licensed attorney, nobody can use it without our agreement". But it's entirely possible that that judgment has set some sort of legal precedent in Ohio, and now only licensed attorneys can use Esq. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 07:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The best way to approach court opinions is to read the ink part of the opinion only, and not the paper part. I think your interpretation is right on the mark. Svanslyck (19:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Keep in mind, though, that there may be other decisions, before or after this one. All I've done was remember something I saw recently and post a link to it. Svanslyck (talk) 23:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

What if I am John Smith Esq., of England, and find myself before the Ohio courts - will the judge call me "Mr Smith" or "John Smith, Esquire"? Why can't Americans just stick to the demotic Mister and leave the rest of us in the middle ages, where we are much happier?86.42.219.9 (talk) 12:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Rewrote the "United States / Legal Profession" Section

I started out just to demand a citation for the claim that lawyers in some States are formally addressed as "Honorable", but the section had so many other problems that I couldn't leave it at that. Some of my changes are admittedly matters of style and taste, but most I consider necessary corrections. Here are my rationales, starting at the top:

• "U.S." for "US": Leaving the standard punctuation out gives a casual impression I consider inappropriate in an encyclopedia, so I put them in. If Wikipedia has a different house rule, whereby "United States" is abbreviated without punctuation, I defer and apologize for not knowing that.

• "title" for "suffix": Post-nominal letters denoting a profession, an academic degree, a title, etc., are not suffixes, as I understand that term. The -ing in riding is a suffix. The others are post-nominal letters in general, and are professions, titles, degrees, etc., in particular cases.

• "members of the legal profession" for "lawyers": Because the article goes on to mention other officers who may be considered esquires, all of whom are connected with the work of the legal profession, but who are not necessarily lawyers, the broader term seemed more appropriate.

• "Additionally, in some States," for "Some states also address their", and so on: "States", when it refers to members of the United States, is customarily capitalized, inasmuch as means something distinct from the common noun state, which may properly be applied to any political sovereignty. Endowing a political sovereignty with the power of speech and having it address its ministerial officers as anything seems incongruous to me. Again, I maintain that Esquire is a title, not a suffix, and when it follows a name, it is almost always abbreviated. (The title is almost exclusively confined to writing, and it is almost never written out in full.)

• "The title Esquire is not allocated . . ." and so on: First, an allocation seems to require a person, group, or thing to receive whatever is being allocated, so I inserted some categories of potential recipients. The phrase, "not unlawful to use," is inelegant, and is also not entirely correct, since the article goes on to explain precisely that using the title can in fact be unlawful, if it is part of a course of conduct that amounts to the unauthorized practice of law. I accordingly rephrased the statement, and qualified it with per se.

It now occurs to me that two different categories of unlawful act are relevant here: the unauthorized practice of law, which, though often a criminal offense, may be committed with the most noble of intentions; and the fraudulent impersonation of a lawyer, which by definition is maliciously deceitful, and is always a crime; but I don't have time to go off on that tangent.

• ". . . use by an unlicensed person . . . can subject him . . . ." for "a person using the term. . . may subject the person . . . ." The original sentence was garbled, probably as a result of unfinished editing, but a contributing factor seems to have been the contortions produced by desperate attempt to avoid grammatical gender when referring to a person whose sex is unknown or irrelevant. I straightened the sentence out and used the masculine, balancing it in the next sentence with the feminine.

• ". . . use by an unlicensed person may be evidence of the unauthorized practice of law . . ." for ". . . using the term "Esquire" in a deliberate attempt to engage in the unauthorized practice of law . . . .": Even in such a case, the offense is not the use of the title Esquire, but the unauthorized practice. The use of Esquire may be evidence that the culprit intended to practice law without a license; but it is not, in itself, the practice of law. (It could, of course, be a fraudulent act, but the article doesn't mention fraud, and I don't have time to add it.)

• Deletion of "All US court cases questioning the use of the term Esquire involve someone who was actually engaged in unauthorized law practice.": The assertion is almost certainly incorrect, since it would mean that every single one of those defendants was guilty. I read the article cited for that proposition, and found nothing even remotely resembling it.

• "The concern is . . . .": Creating an impression that somebody is claiming to have a law license is not the evil to be prevented here. The false claim is the problem; or, looked at from another angle, the evil to be prevented is the false impression that phony lawyer has a law license, not that she claims to have one. I went back to the article cited and found there a sentence that started with, "The concern is . . . ." It made more sense that what was in the article, but it also skipped a step logically, so I adapted it and filled in the logical gap as best I could.

• Deletion of sentence on calling lawyers "Hon.": I've never heard of such a custom in over twenty-five years of practice as a lawyer, in several jurisdictions. If I thought the sentence was worth fixing, I would contend that the qualification, "who are members of that jurisdiction's bar" is even less likely to be correct than the basic assertion. But this article isn't about the various honorific styles that lawyers may be given, nor is it about the particular style, Honorable. It's about Esquire, and that sentence wasn't.

• Citation needed for "Honorifics are not used with courtesy titles . . . ." The specific point of the sentence, that you don't use an honorific with Esquire, is quite correct. The general contention that you don't use honorifics with courtesy titles very likely is also correct, but it's not supported by the authority cited.

Jdcrutch (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

As an attorney for several decades, I never refer to myself as "Esquire" or "Esq.", either orally or in writing. It is an honorific which others may use when addressing you, but to use it yourself is just tacky, and against the rules of usage. I wish more attorneys knew this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.177.45 (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

UK preamble

2.96.177.188 suggests in modifications to the introduction to the use of Esquire in the UK that it became a courtesy title of notable barristers. This is mistaken in its presentation on two fronts: Firstly, all barristers, not just notable ones, were allowed the style of Esquire as a courtesy by virtue of their holding of the degree of the Utter Bar. Secondly, by turning to the law dictionary as a source, the editor ignores the fact that the dictionary only highlights the passages of the sources consulted in respect of matters relevant to the law or lawyers, as it is a legal dictionary its concern extends no further. While it is right to say that the style of Esquire was extended to barristers, it was not exclusive to them, which the preamble suggests. Indeed, the source itself quoted by the editor clarifies that also ranked as Esquires are 'The eldest son of knights and other peers who must wait until, they inherit their father's title' and 'esquires ex officio, given historically to those who hold positions of public trust'. The edit is inaccurate as it implies notable barristers are the principal form of esquires in the UK, which is nonsense, and shows a lack of knowledge of the UK position. Debrett's was quoted as a correction, showing that Esquires still exist in the official Order of Precedence. Here, this is not simply a reference to barristers. For these reasons, the edit is undone. Editor8888 (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Νομο-λεξικον

May be useful to quote/cite Νομο-λεξικον by Blount.
—DIV (137.111.13.4 (talk) 09:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC))

IPA transcription

IPA transcription should be /ɪˈskwajər/ 2A01:CB1C:14A:9900:8449:1C43:151E:44A8 (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Acquire

Is any relation with verb "acquire"? If it is, why this verb is never even mentioned? -- Nashev (talk) 09:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)