Post removed.

[Ton de Witte]

just to clarify matters an U.S. JD is equivalent to LLB not LLD, if someone wants to go from JD to LLD he first has to get a LLM.

[Martin Goldstraw]

I have followed this thread with some amusement as it flowed between what is (believed to be) accepted in the UK and what is (believed to be) accepted elsewhere. Attempting to gain a uniform standard for the term Esquire between the United Kingdom and that of other countries (e.g. the USA) is like attempting to compare apples and pears, they share a certain similarity in that they are both fruit but they are very different fruits.

[Chris Green]

I have followed this thread with some amusement as it flowed between what is (believed to be) accepted in the UK and what is (believed to be) accepted elsewhere. Attempting to gain a uniform standard for the term Esquire between the United Kingdom and that of other countries (e.g. the USA) is like attempting to compare apples and pears, they share a certain similarity in that they are both fruit but they are very different fruits.

Yeees .... But apples and pears do not descend from one original apple tree only 250 years ago. The divergent usages of the one term does however reflect other instances of where American English and English English have diverged: trunk/boot, vest/waistcoat undershirt/vest, etc. Sometimes of course the current American usage more closely reflects the 16th/17th century English usage; not in the case of Esquire however.

[Martin Goldstraw]

Perhaps the analogy was poor but the substance remains. Unlike trunk/boot, bonnet and hood etc., with esquires, the two interpretations are now so different that no easy comparison can be made anymore. I sometimes wonder why we all find it so fascinating when in a modern world, it is a relatively meaningless term (at least it is here in the UK, perhaps the term has more importance in the USA and that is why the question keeps popping up and why we now have eight pages of conversation in this thread).

[JMcMillan]

I think it is safe to say that the designation "esquire" no longer has any official standing in the United States, even for lawyers, at least at the federal level. If it did, it would be included in the Presidential nomination messages sent to the Senate and on the letters patent commissioning law officers and other officials of the United States. But it doesn't, and hasn't for many years. The commission of the Attorney General, for example, reads "... reposing special trust and confidence in the Wisdom, Uprightness and Learning of N. N., of State, I have nominated and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, do appoint him Attorney General of the United States..." Nor does the term "esquire" appear on certificates of admission to the bar of the U.S. Supreme Court: "John B. Doe of Town, State, was on motion first made to the Court in this behalf by Richard D. Roe duly admitted and qualified as an Attorney and Counsellor of the Supreme Court of the United States..., etc. Nor on the commissions of officers of the Foreign Service.

[andrewkerensky]

Interesting, so the Americans have given up using Esquire by the sound of things. I sent several letters out today and happily used 'Esq' after the surname of each recipient. Its pretty much become my custom these days, I also use it in e-mail addresses too. Its an honourific and whatever the term meant historically it has now become just another way of addressing a gentlemen. Plus it is so much nicer than Mister

[JMcMillan]

Interesting, so the Americans have given up using Esquire by the sound of things.

I wouldn't say we've given up using it. There are many lawyers to accord it to themselves (and other lawyers) as a way of trying to level the status playing field with doctors, I guess, and there are some states where you can supposedly be punished for adding "esq" after your name in a way that implies you're a lawyer if you really aren't one. What I'm saying is that it apparently enjoys no official recognition, which is a different thing.

[Edward Hillenbrand]

Reading the Wiki on post-nominal letters was ... interesting. Apparently someone has gone to the trouble of coming up with letters for just about every profession there is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_po ... ted_States I will say that I saw several errors in this page. For example EMT-P, which I have and use Wike lists as having passed the National Registry exam. I have not. I live in a State that does not recognize the National Registry of EMS since it is a private (and very excellent) testing organization.

Getting back to what the good doctor Costa has told me, presuming I understood him correctly, any gentleman would be able to style himself as:

Esq. John Doe, AAS, BS in the United States, not the UK,as we ALL know that we are two nations separated by a common language. With the Esq replacing Mr. or General or other such honorifics. Of course, while I personally agree with the Doctor, I think he is being very Quixotic thinking that the US will change and start using Esq as an honorific.

[andrewkerensky]

Post removed.

[Martin Goldstraw]

Thank you Andrew, it is always helpful to hear from the horse's mouth (or in this case very near to the horse's mouth). It seems that whenever we are fortunate enough to gain the merest scraps of information from the College of Arms something new crops up. I am surprised to learn that as a mere Justice of the Peace, in the view of the College of Arms, I outrank someone whom Her Majesty has seen fit to honour as an Officer of the Order of the British Empire. Regardless of the view of the College, I shall continue to consider anyone who has received a gong from HM, regardless of the grade, to be someone to look up to (I don't count the unworthy life peers, like Jeffrey Archer, who can't be stripped of their dignity regardless of what they do).