Earlier today, while researching campaign donations--a primitive had made the ludicrous allegation he had donated "the maximum amount" to a certain political candidate; never mind who--I came across something intriguing.
Usually I don't pay attention, but whenever a primitive or sub-primitive alleges a "maximum" contribution, the nose tickles, and searches. If a primitive alleges simply a donation, no big deal, not worth the time and trouble.
But as the Leona Helmsley of DUmmieland, "flyarm," and the richboy the Bostonian Drunkard are the only primitives in any circumstances to make "maximum donations" (but as neither of them talk about it, franksolich leaves them alone), whenever another primitive alleges the "maximum," I check it out, finding as usual the primitive lied.
I go down the list of contributors, and notice that attorneys in many areas use the title "esquire."
I had noticed that while living in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, but never paid attention.
It seems silly to me.
One finds them once in a while in Nebraska, but probably 999 out of every 1000 attorneys in Nebraska don't use the title, probably as it smacks of elitism, which doesn't sell well with decent civilized people.
Some random comments on the title Esquire :
The Uncivil Litigator said...
Since the title in question is not being granted by the United States, but by the state bar association or simply the individual himself, there is no constitutional violation. Indeed, using "Esq." is actually an exercise of the powers reserved to the states under the 11th Amendment. So if you love your country and your constitution, you WILL use the title.
No title of nobility? It's Esquire not Count. My understanding was that the derivation was from the landed gentry. Indeed, I seem to recall that in 17th Century Colonial America most gentlemen were addressed as Equire (not from actual memory but from reading and stuff). But if anyone wants to call me Count, I would have no objection
Just a thought on the ability to identify an attorney by the use of "Esq.":
As there is no legal definition of who may and who may not use the honorific, I contend that anyone may sign their documents in such a manner, and thus negate your ability to tell the difference.
Other than that, the use of the term does appear to be pretentious. In its original usage, it conveyed a sense of respectability. However, in my small town, there are two attorneys (of 3 total in town) who use the "honorific", that are considered by most of the community to exist at a level one step lower than pond scum. So much for respectability.
subvanpatent said...
I just graduated from law school and Googled the proper use of Esq. I found a web site that showed how to properly use titles. It said that Esq. could be used for a lawyer, an architech, a professional engineer and a JP. So it sounds like it sounds like is more than for lawyers. ihttp://www.taft.cc.ca.us/newTC/Academic/LiberalArts/OWL/forms_
Howard W Berry, Esq. said...
Well if you're British, like I am, Esquire is used as a polite title appended to a man's name when no other title is used, typically in the address of a letter or other documents : Robert A. Pearson Esquire.
I reqularly write letters addressed to John Smith, Esq. and regularly receive letters addressed to me with Esq. at the end of my name. It's good manners and etiquette in the British Isles to write it.
I'm not claiming to be a lawyer or a young nobleman in training for knighthood, nor am I an officer in the service of Royalty, a landed proprietor or country squire. I am just a person for whom no other title is applicable who engages in correct letter writing etiquette.
"ORIGIN late Middle English : from Old French esquier, from Latin scutarius ‘shield-bearer,’ from scutum ‘shield’ "
