21–30 of 43 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When and where? In the U.S., 32 of the 55 framers of the Constitution, and 25 of the 56 signers of the declaration of independence, were lawyers.
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsj&fileNam... Apparently the original text of the 13th Amendment was quite a bit different than what it eventually came to be. Is the appellation "Lawyer" not a "Title?"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When and where? In the U.S., 32 of the 55 framers of the Constitution, and 25 of the 56 signers of the declaration of independence, were lawyers.
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsj&fileNam... Apparently the original text of the 13th Amendment was quite a bit different than what it eventually came to be. Is the appellation "Lawyer" not a "Title?"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When and where? In the U.S., 32 of the 55 framers of the Constitution, and 25 of the 56 signers of the declaration of independence, were lawyers.
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsj&fileNam... Apparently the original text of the 13th Amendment was quite a bit different than what it eventually came to be. Is the appellation "Lawyer" not a "Title?"
"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsj&fileNam... Apparently the original text of the 13th Amendment was quite a bit different than what it eventually came to be. Is the appellation "Lawyer" not a "Title?"
From the above link: "If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trus…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the above link: "If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trus…
"Lawyer" is a job title, like "engineer" or "doctor" not a "title of nobility or honor."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Lawyer" is a job title, like "engineer" or "doctor" not a "title of nobility or honor."
In another age, lawyers carried the title "Esquire." http://www.lawsuitfaq.com/lawyerattorney.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
BSA? One of the more prominent backers of SOPA? Are you kidding me? These are the same goons who send threatening letters about EULA violations on their members' (Apple and Microsoft being prominent) behalf. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
You're getting the nerd outrage talking points mixed up. This thread is about patent trolling (which the BSA is against), not copyright trolling (which the BSA pioneered).
I'd certainly like to see EFF on that list, but we've got Business Software Alliance (Microsoft) and Engine Advocacy (Google) on there. No one with strong grassroots ties among startups unfortunately.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In another age, lawyers carried the title "Esquire." http://www.lawsuitfaq.com/lawyerattorney.html
Not in the US. In the US it has never been more than an unofficial professional title (like "phd"). How you clearly know its not a title is that it's not granted by any entity, not has it ever been. Anyone can call themselves "esquire" unless they do so in a context that amounts to unauthorized practice of law (just like with "doctor"). You can sign your letters "D9u, esq." just as you can sign them "D9u, M.D." thoug…
Had you read the provided link you would have seen that affixing the title "Esq" to one's name is an insinuation of being qualified to practice law.
It's still used today.
http://www.linkedin.com/title/esq/in-us-70-Greater-New-York-...
http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/esq--title-624803.html
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=20&...
http://www.linkedin.com/title/esq/in-us-70-Greater-New-York-...
http://www.formsofaddress.info/Lawyer.html
http://lawyers.law.cornell.edu/lawyer/steven-j-scheinin-esq-...
If I tried to pass myself off as "D9u, Esq," I would be seen as even more of a troll than you already see me as, and if I were to dispense legal advice whilst masquerading as "Blah Blah, Esq" I could find myself in trouble.
The authority to practice law is *granted by any entity," and that entity is called the Bar Association.
The "Esq" is to denote deference to the "Honorable" Judge, or magistrate, etc.
It may not be a crime for me to append an honorific to my name while residing in the USA, but such is not the case in many other nations.
To reiterate: Regardless, the terms "Attorney at law," or "Esq," are still in use in the USA today. One is bestowed said honorific by an "entity," which is called the "Bar Association." The beginning of my position was that such titled individuals were once prohibited from holding public office.
Signed, D9u, idiot extraordinaire.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not in the US. In the US it has never been more than an unofficial professional title (like "phd"). How you clearly know its not a title is that it's not granted by any entity, not has it ever been. Anyone can call themselves "esquire" unless they do so in a context that amounts to unauthorized practice of law (just like with "doctor"). You can sign your letters "D9u, esq." just as you can sign them "D9u, M.D." thoug…
I beg to differ, as the situation was quite different 150 + years ago. Had you read the provided link you would have seen that affixing the title "Esq" to one's name is an insinuation of being qualified to practice law. It's still used today. http://www.linkedin.com/title/esq/in-us-70-Greater-New-York-... http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/esq--title-624803.html http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=20…
The term "esquire" is not bestowed by the bar. It something some lawyers affix to their names, but it doesn't have any more legal significance than any other informal, unofficial, honorific (e.g. "professor"). It did have such significance in the U.K., but never in the U.S. to my knowledge. "Attorney at law" is not an honorific but an advertisement of licensure, like "certified public accountant" or "certified financial planner" or "registered nurse" or "professional engineer." At no point in U.S. history were attorneys ever prohibited from holding public office. Indeed, it's interesting to note that in both the 1st Congress (1789-91) and the 112th Congress (2011-12), exactly 37% of each body was lawyers.
The "titles of nobility or honor" that are referred to in the text you cited are things like "Duke" or "Earl."