The Style of Esquire

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
15 April 2015 15:46
 

David Pope;104064 wrote:

Marines don’t add any reference. Unlike the other services, Marine and Coast Guard judge advocates are line officers.


Yes, but Air Force lawyers don’t seem to use any abbreviation, either, even though they are not line officers.

 

The idea of JAGC being used to substitute for the civilian J.D. doesn’t hold up in any case, even in the Navy, since all Navy staff corps officers use similar abbreviations whether there’s a corresponding civilian professional postnominal or not.  A Civil Engineer Corps officer is "CEC, USN" whether or not he is also a PE; a Supply Corps officer is "SC, USN," regardless of his academic degree or whether he is also a CPA.

 

In the U.S. Army, the use of JA after the rank also doesn’t really serve as a substitute for J.D. or Esq., because in the Army all officers below general officer rank sign with their branch or corps designation after the rank, line and staff alike.

 
mghofer
 
Avatar
 
 
mghofer
Total Posts:  46
Joined  14-09-2014
 
 
 
16 April 2015 01:45
 

Joseph McMillan;104066 wrote:

The idea of JAGC being used to substitute for the civilian J.D. doesn’t hold up in any case, even in the Navy, since all Navy staff corps officers use similar abbreviations whether there’s a corresponding civilian professional postnominal or not.  A Civil Engineer Corps officer is "CEC, USN" whether or not he is also a PE; a Supply Corps officer is "SC, USN," regardless of his academic degree or whether he is also a CPA.


My experience is mostly Navy, for obvious reasons, and should have limited my original comment such.

 

I have seen wide use if JAGC in the correspondence of JAG officers. Also it is now against policy to allow anyone into the JAG Corps without a JD. I made no case of it applying to any other staff corps officers. The conversation topic is the use of "esquire" and as it is mainly limited to the legal profession, that is the military speciality.

 

Still, I am unmoved by the reasoning in the above quote. This strikes me a a all squares at rectangles argument. Just because other staff officers don’t use something similar, it does not follow that it is not used so in this particular case.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
16 April 2015 09:26
 

mghofer;104068 wrote:

I have seen wide use if JAGC in the correspondence of JAG officers.

 


Mark,

 

This gets to the core of the point I was trying to make.

 

My understanding of your argument is that JAG officers in the Navy use JAGC in lieu of Esq, because "JAGC" suffices to show that they hold a J.D., where their civilian counterparts would use Esq for the same purpose. If I’ve misunderstood, please clarify.

 

I’m not disputing at all that the JAGC postnominal serves to identify the person as a lawyer, and therefore the holder of a law degree. It therefore functions in practical terms the same way "Esq" does when used by a civilian attorney for the purpose of saying "I’m a lawyer." If that’s all you’re contending, then I agree.

 

Peeling things back another layer, however, persuades me that the parallel is imperfect at best; I would say "superficial."

 

The fact that you’ve "seen wide use of JAGC in the correspondence of JAG officers" goes exactly to my point. The reason you’ve seen this is that it would be incorrect for a JAG officer to do anything else on official Navy correspondence. A staff officer is not "John Doe, LT, USN," but "John Doe, LT, SC, USN," or "Richard Roe, LTJG, JAGC, USNR," or whatever the case may be. Failure to include the staff corps designation does two things. One, it implies that he is a line officer and therefore in a position to exercise command authority outside his specialty. Two, it fails to signal, in the case of a JAG officer, that he is specifically empowered to give whatever legal opinion/advice/direction is contained in the letter.  Merely holding a law degree or being a member of the bar does not qualify an officer to give official legal advice unless he holds a JAGC commission.

 

I don’t want to drag this out unless others want to explore it further. I guess my only concluding point would be that, in the traditional civilian context, signing oneself "esquire" is an assertion that one is a notch above other gentlemen, if only in a vague sort of way. In a naval setting, signing oneself with a staff corps designation is a concession that, in the grand scheme of naval things, one is a notch ever so slightly below those who aren’t required to use such a designation. (And I say this is the full knowledge that my first boss, RADM Andrew A. Giordano, SC, USN, 34th Chief of the Supply Corps, would tear me a new one if he heard me suggesting that being an officer of the Supply Corps was anything less than the most sublime thing to which a human being could aspire.)

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
16 April 2015 11:50
 

Interesting spectator sport.  Reminds me of "the Irish [or substitute ethnicity of choice] believe all men are created equal, the Irish are just a bit more equal than the rest"

For ethnicity, just substitute one’s academic degree, career choice, branch or specialty of service, employer, home town, favorite sport and/or team, etc.  Human nature, perhaps - serious to the speaker, snicker factor to the listener of a different ethnicity / degree / etc.

 

The on-topic relevance to recent chatter re: heraldry should be obvious ... smile

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
16 April 2015 12:04
 

Michael F. McCartney;104070 wrote:

The on-topic relevance to recent chatter re: heraldry should be obvious ... smile

 
mghofer
 
Avatar
 
 
mghofer
Total Posts:  46
Joined  14-09-2014
 
 
 
16 April 2015 14:55
 

Joseph McMillan;104069 wrote:

Mark,

This gets to the core of the point I was trying to make.

 

My understanding of your argument is that JAG officers in the Navy use JAGC in lieu of Esq, because "JAGC" suffices to show that they hold a J.D., where their civilian counterparts would use Esq for the same purpose. If I’ve misunderstood, please clarify.


You understand correctly.


Joseph McMillan;104069 wrote:

I don’t want to drag this out unless others want to explore it further. I guess my only concluding point would be that, in the traditional civilian context, signing oneself "esquire" is an assertion that one is a notch above other gentlemen, if only in a vague sort of way. In a naval setting, signing oneself with a staff corps designation is a concession that, in the grand scheme of naval things, one is a notch ever so slightly below those who aren’t required to use such a designation. (And I say this is the full knowledge that my first boss, RADM Andrew A. Giordano, SC, USN, 34th Chief of the Supply Corps, would tear me a new one if he heard me suggesting that being an officer of the Supply Corps was anything less than the most sublime thing to which a human being could aspire.)


I guess this is the central debate. Does signing oneself "esquire" assert a higher status than "attorney-at-law" in the American context? If not, my original point stands. If so, you distinction is important.

 

The good rear admiral (upper half) probably was fighting the traditional surface warfare officer view of supply, i.e. most unflattering. I, as a restricted line officer, understand his consternation.

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
16 April 2015 16:20
 

mghofer;104072 wrote:

I guess this is the central debate. Does signing oneself "esquire" assert a higher status than "attorney-at-law" in the American context?


Not in my view, but perhaps in the view of those attorneys who honor themselves with it. I suspect that the origin of the usage (as I understand it) and the reason for its survival as a self-applied honorific are somewhat different. It originates in a sense that men in certain professions deserved to be treated as being of somewhat higher status that ordinary folk. (This would be the era in which according someone the title "mister" was also a statement of social status a cut above the masses, but a cut below an esquire.)

 

But I think many lawyers who apply it to themselves today probably do so out of title envy, to make sure they are viewed on the same elevated plane as physicians (who get to be called "doctor") and ministers (who get to be "reverend").

 

It is noteworthy that if one looks through lists of partners at the top law firms, none of them seem to feel the need to apply the term "esquire" to themselves. Nor does our learned secretary, Hugh Brady, as far as I know. Personally, I’m always happy to use the traditional term in addressing any (male, civilian) lawyer who doesn’t use it of himself.


Quote:

The good rear admiral (upper half) probably was fighting the traditional surface warfare officer view of supply, i.e. most unflattering. I, as a restricted line officer, understand his consternation.

"Consternation" isn’t quite the word; "contempt" would come closer. He once told me to translate a briefing he’d tasked me to prepare into "two-star line officer baby talk."

 
Holcombe Thomas
 
Avatar
 
 
Holcombe Thomas
Total Posts:  6
Joined  22-03-2013
 
 
 
16 April 2015 17:13
 

When I was "called to the Bar" (love that old phrase!) rather many years ago, it was the practice to never refer to oneself as "Esq." or "Esquire" and God forbid that one would append it to a signature.  It simply wasn’t done and, I am sure, mistakes would be called to attention by an older, more experienced lawyer or judge.  It was a courtesy given by lawyers and courts to other lawyers.

Most lawyers used "Esq." for female attorneys, but the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals at one time used "Esquiress."  I lost a bet once, betting that "esquiress" could not be found in the Oxford English Dictionary.

 

When I went on to join the U.S. Foreign Service, I learned that Foreign Service officers, too, rated the title, but have to say that rule was generally honored in the breach.  I am not sure I ever saw anything addressed to me or any other Foreign Service officer using esquire as a title.

 

Holcombe

 
Joseph McMillan
 
Avatar
 
 
Joseph McMillan
Total Posts:  7658
Joined  08-06-2004
 
 
 
16 April 2015 18:54
 

Holcombe Thomas;104076 wrote:

When I went on to join the U.S. Foreign Service, I learned that Foreign Service officers, too, rated the title, but have to say that rule was generally honored in the breach. I am not sure I ever saw anything addressed to me or any other Foreign Service officer using esquire as a title.


Holcombe,

 

I didn’t know you were an FSO!  So are/were many of my best friends…and I don’t mean that as a backhand slight.

 

My experience is the same.  In 25+ years of working almost every day with one FSO or another, I never encountered one who used "esquire" after his name.  And that includes some pretty pompous former ambassadors and even a few DCMs.

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
16 April 2015 20:22
 

Years (decades) back I administered the Foreign Service exam a few times in a small Civil Service Commission (now OPM) office.  Apparently a high bar to pass for graduates of the local state colleges - it seemed to have been designed by & for Boston mandarins.  Might have been useful for those posted to London, Paris or Brussels, but not sure how relevant to Mogadishu etc.  I was glad to be inflicting rather than suffering the test!

Before retirement I saw Esq used by agency lawyers at USDA and NASA, mainly as an abbreviated job title but also I suspect to assert parity with the professional foresters and rocket scientists.  I don’t recall ever seeing it used in a non- work context, except perhaps in humor.  A postnomial parallel for members of the Bar, to our Guidelines recommendation re: gongs of various nongovernmental bodies?  - to set them apart from those of us who never pass the bar, at least during happy hour?

 
Holcombe Thomas
 
Avatar
 
 
Holcombe Thomas
Total Posts:  6
Joined  22-03-2013
 
 
 
16 April 2015 23:05
 

Mike, I can’t think of a time when Esquire was ever, or would ever be, used, save in a work context.  The practice was to address business mail to lawyers using it.  I suppose social mail (a wedding invitation, say) could use Esq., but I’ve not seen it and certainly haven’t ever received any mail of any sort, save business, using Esq.

Holcombe

 
Michael F. McCartney
 
Avatar
 
 
Michael F. McCartney
Total Posts:  3535
Joined  24-05-2004
 
 
 
16 April 2015 23:22
 

Ditto, tho’ we would sometimes use it in email to our attorneys for non-work messages e.g. wanna go for lunch?  We were goofing but I sometimes wondered if they figured that out…  smile

 
Wilfred Leblanc
 
Avatar
 
 
Wilfred Leblanc
Total Posts:  1223
Joined  31-07-2007
 
 
 
16 April 2015 23:32
 

Until recently, the Society of Colonial Wars, sent out mailings in which every member without some sort of professional prenominal was given the postnominal Esq. It fit with the ethos of the organization, but I was always slightly embarrassed by it.

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
17 April 2015 08:19
 

It seems to me that the term would be appropriately used in formal written (mailed) correspondence, such as a wedding invitation.

I suspect that it may have fallen out of use as the style accorded gentlemen (Mr.) began to be used for all men.  It’s probably just easier to lump esquires in with everyone else and address them all as "Mr.", instead of trying to sort Esq. v. Gent. v. John Doe.

 
David Pope
 
Avatar
 
 
David Pope
Total Posts:  559
Joined  17-09-2010
 
 
 
17 April 2015 08:27
 

Wilfred Leblanc;104081 wrote:

Until recently, the Society of Colonial Wars, sent out mailings in which every member without some sort of professional prenominal was given the postnominal Esq. It fit with the ethos of the organization, but I was always slightly embarrassed by it.


Based on the information that Joe has provided, it seems also to be incorrect.

 

My understanding is that physicians wouldn’t be styled Esquire, solely on the basis of their profession.  If that’s the case, then using Esq. for everyone else without a professional prenominal actually inverts the order of precedence.