Non-sense. An attorney is a one who is licensed to practice law. Keywords are of course licensed and practice. A Lawyer is one who *knows* the Law. He no longer has a place to work for there are no more Courts *of* Law only courts *at* law hence attorney at law. Clientele consists solely of "persons". No longer are there Citizens where-by a Lawyer could be called.

No, an individual can be someones attorney-in-fact without any legal training, but he is not a lawyer without passing the bar. This is explained in detail the last post.

Does a Lawyer need to pass the Bar in order be called an Attorney?

Overall

-The main article is interesting but there are a couple of points that are a little off, depends on how technical you want to be. “Attorney” has Anglo-French origins, which differs from “old French”, and was the Gallicized dialect that the Normans who invaded England spoke. “Lawyer” comes from “Law” which originates in old English (before 1000 a.d.) but was borrowed from the Scandinavian “lag” meaning a measure, a stroke, something laid down or fixed. Misuse of the terms attorney and lawyer has lead to the misconception that they are interchangeable. Although they often refer to the same person, they are not perfectly synonymous. It is just intellectual sloppiness, but mass intellectual sloppiness..

The term “lawyer” is a designation of profession, while “attorney” refers to status. A lawyer holds himself out to the public as being: 1) able to practice law in the given jurisdiction; and 2) available for hire. This is why when you get a traffic ticket you negotiate with a State’s Attorney or District Attorney instead of the State’s Lawyer; you can’t hire them. Being an attorney simply means you represent the rights of another. There are two ways of doing this, as an attorney at law or as an attorney in fact. You can make anyone your attorney (in fact) by simply giving him or her the authority to act in your stead with a Power of Attorney. Being an attorney at law just means that the requirement of having a written POA that is no longer necessary because of special status granted by the government.

Again, this is hyper-technical (I estimate that 95% of lawyers or attorneys don’t know or understand the distinction) but, using Anon17981(congratulations on finishing up) as an example, the “timeline” is this:

1) Anon goes to law school and graduates – he has a J.D. (Juris Doctor) but is not yet a lawyer or attorney;

2) after law school, Anon is admitted to practice (i.e. passed the bar) on Tuesday – he has a J.D. and is licensed but is still not a lawyer or attorney;

3) On Wednesday Anon goes out and advertises himself as being available for clients (i.e. hang a shingle) – he is now a lawyer but not yet an attorney;

4) Finally, on Thursday, Anon has a client come in and he agrees to represent him or her – now Anon is a lawyer and an attorney.

Some argue that at point #2 that Anon would become an Attorney at Law status starts by virtue of the government grant of authority to practice; however, I find that this nullifies the “attorney” portion of the phrase. Having the authority to do something and actually doing it are different things By analogy, if I asked to borrow your car, there is a difference between you giving me the authority to drive the car and actually driving it. But even if this critics are correct, the basic premise – that lawyer and attorney are not the same thing – is still proved because, at point #2, he is not a lawyer yet.

Using myself as an example, it can also go in reverse. I was a lawyer and an attorney. Now I am a professor though still licensed to practice. But since I no longer represent the rights of another and no longer accept clients, I am no longer an attorney or a lawyer.

Despite what the main article stated, in America, Esquire is an honorific title not a professional title. It should never be used to refer to yourself (see Bryan Garner, The Elements of Legal Style). The term is used to show respect to others; to use it for yourself is considered arrogant. A profession title would be Attorney at Law, Counselor at Law, Q.C. (in England, Queen’s Counsel), etc.

Fergal

– Theoretically Caroline Kennedy could be an attorney (in fact) but I would have a hard time believing that someone who had so many legally trained people in her family would call her self that without passing a bar. Didn’t see the article. Did it give you the impression that she never passed ANY bar or just NY’s NY’s is know to be very tough; some who can’t pass it will go to nearby states like Penn and sit for their bar. Once they get into any state they can practice federal law in any state like bankruptcy and tax.

Tjl771 – Question #1

There is a semantic problem with your most recent question. The phrase “pass the bar” in the old days was actually referencing the physical layout of the courtroom. In most courtrooms back then (and in most today) you had a physical separation between the gallery (where citizens uninvolved in the case) and the area where the judge, lawyers, and parties to the case sit/work (in England and someplaces in America called “the well”). This separation is a railing call the bar. Passing the bar literally meant to be able, by virtue of your status, go through the gate in the railing from the gallery to the well (without being held in contempt of court or arrested. So if they have been admitted to practice (also called “licensed”), you have “passed the bar”.

When you use the phrase, it seems like you are asking about passing a bar exam. Bar exams are a more recent phenomenon than passing the bar. But now most people think they are synonymous; this is incorrect. For example, in Wisconsin, if you graduated from one of the two law schools in the state you can be automatically admitting to the bar without having to take a test. Most states have two requirements for passing the bar (or being admitted to the bar or being licensed to practice law in the state): the written exam and the character and fitness review. The overwhelming majority of people who are allowed to sit for the exam pass the review too. However, back in ’98 or so, the Illinois Supreme Court denied admission to a young man who had sat for and passed the exam. He later was convicted sentenced to 40 years for soliciting an undercover FBI informant to kill a federal judge, so it was probably a good call.

So the short answer (after a long-winded warm-up) to your last question is “No”. However (there is almost always a “however”), in some instances, someone who is has passed the bar in one state, Illinois for example, can practice law in another state pro hac vice (“for this occasion only”) with that court’s permission for a single case. The person has to get permission for each case he or she does in the 2nd state. You see this a lot in big personal injury cases that require specialization like asbestos cases.

Tjl771 – Question #2

As to the person you mention using J.D. after his or her name. It is perfectly fine, although a bit unconventional. I use J.D. after my name because I am now professor and no longer practice (but am still licensed too). It is analogous to a medical doctor; you can call him “Dr. Smith” or “John Smith, M.D.”, (but don’t do both). The “Doctor” in M.D. refers to his educational level not his profession, but these usually overlap. It is perfectly legal (yes, there was an actual court case on this) for a law school graduate to be called “Doctor”. But for your example, it is probably just personal preference. Most people who are licensed to practice graduated law school so they could use the J.D. after their name. The exception would be in a state that allows “reading for the law”; where a person who has worked for a law firm is allowed to sit for the bar exam without having gone to law school, kind of an apprentice program. My great-grandfather did it. Only a couple of states still allow it, like Maine.

“J.D.” stands for Juris Doctor not doctorate. It is confusing because the kind of degree that is conferred when the person in question graduates law school is a doctorate. Some schools even had “doctorate” on the diploma they give out. Mine did until someone did some research in 1994 and they made the change. It does make sense; if you graduate medical school you receive a doctorate but M.D. stands for medical doctor. Remember the term “doctor” was first applied to Ph.D. before medical doctors but that is what people think of when they hear “doctor”.

I guess what I am really wondering here is can someone be admitted to practice law in certain states without having to pass the bar? That would explain why they would use the JD instead, right? Also, would these people be able to provide legal counsel?

Thanks anon17981. I did know what the JD stood for, however I did not know how it differed. I am still trying to understand why someone would use the JD after their name instead of either Esquire or Attorney at Law. I ask because I know of someone who uses JD after their name but is admitted to practice law in MA & RI and I don't quite understand why.

To answer your question, J.D. is an abbreviation for the degree conferred upon a graduating law student. It means Juris Doctorate, and most law schools give this type of degree to their students. Although technically when one has not passed the bar, they are not a lawyer, many people do in fact call themselves a lawyer. This is due to the fact that one can do many other things in the field of law besides advocating in court. i.e. finance at a bank, in house advisors etc. I am about to finish law school myself with the degree of J.D.

I have a question regarding the difference between Esq. & J.D. If someone who is a JD is not an attorney by the previous information listed, than how can someone be admitted to practice law in certain states? I ask because I know someone who uses JD after their name but is admitted to practice law in MA & RI and I am trying to understand the differences.

Thanks pocurana for the info. Had been reading about Caroline Kennedy, who refers to herself as an Attorney, and read a New York Times article which inferred she had never been admitted to the bar. Just wondered if JD = Attorney. Fergal

Fergal - A law school graduate and an attorney are two different things in the United States. To be an attorney you have to be licensed (i.e., pass the bar) *and* (typically) have gone to law school. Before you pass the bar but after you have graduated law school you just have a JD after your name, but you can't call yourself an lawyer.

Is a law school graduate automatically a lawyer & attorney in the US? Or is admission to a state bar necessary?