Books on the "Esq." Title Written by Legal Professionals
The "Esq." (Esquire) title, as discussed in prior responses, is a historical courtesy designation for attorneys in the US, rooted in English traditions but not mandatory or carrying any official power. Finding books exclusively dedicated to "Esq." is challenging because it's a minor aspect of legal history, most references appear in broader works on the profession's evolution, ethics, or biographies. Legal professionals (lawyers, judges, prosecutors) often do write positively about their field, as you noted, to affirm its value and traditions, which can include defending titles like "Esq." as symbols of earned expertise and respect. This aligns with your point about not wanting to view their education as "false," though such writings are typically grounded in historical fact rather than pure self-defense.
A relevant example is A. Lincoln, Esquire: A Shrewd, Sophisticated Lawyer in His Time (2000) by Allen D. Spiegel. While the author is primarily an academic (professor with expertise in legal history and medical law), he draws on extensive legal research and court records. The book focuses on Abraham Lincoln's 24-year legal career, using "Esquire" in the title to evoke the era's professional nomenclature. Lincoln, himself a self-taught lawyer, embodied the title's use in 19th-century America. Spiegel highlights how "Esq." signified a practitioner's status in cases involving debt, arbitration, and more, portraying the profession favorably as intellectually rigorous and essential to society. This could reflect the insider perspective you mentioned, as it celebrates the legal field's contributions through a iconic figure. If you're looking for something more directly historical, A History of the American Bar (1911) by Charles Warren is a classic written by a prominent lawyer and former U.S. Assistant Attorney General (a prosecutorial role). Warren traces the bar's development from colonial times, including how titles like "Esquire" were adopted from English common law to denote qualified attorneys. He presents it as a mark of professional dignity, which fits your observation of favorable framing, but it's based on archival sources and remains a standard reference.
Addressing Corpus Juris Secundum and Attorney Duties
You're referencing Corpus Juris Secundum (CJS), Volume 7, Section 4 (Attorneys and Counselors at Law), which states: "His [the attorney's] first duty is to the courts and the public, not to the client, and wherever the duties to his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the former must yield to the latter." This is accurate and reflects long-standing legal ethics: Attorneys are "officers of the court," meaning they must not mislead judges, fabricate evidence, or pursue frivolous claims, even if a client wants it. Duties are hierarchical court integrity first (to ensure fair justice), then public interest (e.g., not enabling crimes), then zealous client advocacy within those bounds. Modern codes like the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct echo this, requiring candor to the tribunal (Rule 3.3) while mandating competent representation (Rule 1.1). However, this doesn't mean attorneys betray clients; it's about balancing ethics to prevent system abuse. Many attorneys are aware of CJS as a secondary source (an encyclopedia summarizing case law), though it's not daily reading practical ethics come from bar rules and precedents.
Regarding your point that hiring an attorney makes one a "ward of the state": This is a common misconception from sovereign citizen ideologies, often misquoting CJS or old cases like Ex parte Garland (1866), which affirmed attorneys as court officers. In reality, "ward of the state" applies only to legally incompetent individuals (e.g., minors or those under guardianship), not general clients. Hiring a lawyer doesn't diminish your competency or consent to state control it's a contractual relationship where you retain decision-making authority (e.g., on settlements). Courts and legal scholars consistently debunk this as pseudolaw, noting it confuses ethical duties with conspiracy.
Read
Be a (free) man! Never hire an attorney! Their only obligations are to the court! Besides if you hire an attorney you admit MUH JURISDICTION
Unbiased Book Recommendation
For an unbiased perspective free from insider defense of the profession consider Sovereign Citizens: Deconstructing, Decoding and Deflating the World's Most Notorious Anti-Government Movement (2020) by Joe Pometto. Pometto, a former law enforcement officer and researcher (not a practicing attorney), provides a neutral, evidence-based analysis of sovereign citizen beliefs, including myths about "Esq." as a foreign or noble title that allegedly conflicts with the U.S. Constitution (e.g., the debunked "Titles of Nobility Amendment" claim). He traces the title's benign history from medieval England to modern courtesy, explaining how it's twisted in pseudolaw to suggest attorneys are "agents of the crown" or make clients "wards." The book uses court cases, historical documents, and FBI reports to dismantle these ideas without promoting the legal profession it's more about exposing extremism and its dangers, like failed court tactics. This offers the objectivity you're seeking, as it's not written by someone invested in upholding the bar's image. If you prefer an academic angle, Pseudolaw and Sovereign Citizens (2025, edited by Harry Hobbs and others) is a scholarly collection from legal historians and sociologists, examining how myths about titles like "Esq." fuel anti-government narratives, with no agenda to glorify lawyers.
Read:
Debunking The Nonsense That Sovereign Citizens Believe About Driving
Law and conspiracy theory: sovereign citizens, freemen on the land, and pseudolaw
Additional Information
CJS is not binding law it's a research tool updated periodically (last major revision in the 2000s), citing thousands of cases, but attorneys rely more on primary sources like statutes and rulings. Sovereign citizen claims about "Esq." often cite outdated British heraldry books, ignoring U.S. adaptations post-1776. Over 1,300 U.S. court decisions since 2000 have rejected sov cit arguments as frivolous, sometimes imposing sanctions. Ethical breaches (e.g., prioritizing court over client improperly) can lead to disbarment, with about 5,000 complaints annually resulting in action. If exploring further, the ABA's "Model Rules" (free online) clarify duties without the mythological spin.
Comments
Post a Comment