tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post7413407259913980835..comments2023-08-24T10:39:23.460-04:00Comments on CAAFlog: One more problem with the Wuterich opinionDwight Sullivanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11657981110237418710noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-25472372017687987482008-06-29T14:37:00.000-04:002008-06-29T14:37:00.000-04:00Based on an MS Word compare and merge analysis of ...Based on an MS Word compare and merge analysis of NMCCA's original opinion in Wuterich and the version now on its web site, there were two changes: (1) correcting the spelling of Lee Levine's name; and (2) deleting a track changes formatting note in the originally posted version.Dwight Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11657981110237418710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-86998287982054855102008-06-27T12:45:00.000-04:002008-06-27T12:45:00.000-04:00The versions of Wuterich on both NMCCA's web site ...The versions of Wuterich on both NMCCA's web site and NKO have now corrected Mr. Levine's name.<BR/><BR/>I'm on the road with very limited computer capabilities, so I haven't been able to do a merge docs yet to see if there are other changes, but I'll do that over the weekend.Dwight Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11657981110237418710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-62955426769690080092008-06-24T00:05:00.000-04:002008-06-24T00:05:00.000-04:00Missy,A very subtle point of logic: You cannot dec...Missy,<BR/><BR/>A very subtle point of logic: You cannot declare "it's 2008" and simultanously advocate "forward-thinking." <BR/><BR/>Think about it.<BR/><BR/>Gene, your master plan to disempower women has been foiled!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-45997964200913485242008-06-23T16:18:00.000-04:002008-06-23T16:18:00.000-04:00I do it just to irritate those who think I shouldn...I do it just to irritate those who think I shouldn't.<BR/><BR/>Bridget Wilson, Esq. <BR/><BR/>AKA Her Royal Highness, Her Grace and Exalted Shareholder in the FirmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-65704091491723366062008-06-23T16:11:00.000-04:002008-06-23T16:11:00.000-04:00I am also of the understanding that the term Esqui...I am also of the understanding that the term Esquire should not be used to describe oneself because (as CAAFLOG points out) it is an honorific -- for others. If someone signs a pleading "John Doe, Esq." I will will typically sign my reply brief: "St. Richard McWilliams, the LionHearted, Strikingly Handsome, JD who Graduated top 1/3 of His Class, Esq." It's kind of like Joe DiMaggio requiring that he be introduced as "the Greatest Living Ball Player" at all public appearances.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-65548319174427505002008-06-23T12:37:00.000-04:002008-06-23T12:37:00.000-04:001040 Anon:(1) Huh? How did Gene suggest otherwis...1040 Anon:<BR/><BR/>(1) Huh? How did Gene suggest otherwise? (He didn't.)<BR/><BR/>(2) Garner agrees with Gene and EGN: "The mild honorific [Esq.] is used nowadays with the names of men and women alike; it is incorrect, however, to use this title with any other title, such as Mr. or Ms." Bryan A. Garner, A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage 327 (2d ed. 1995).<BR/><BR/>(3) Apropos of your final question, Garner also tells us that "[o]ne law review has devoted several pages to an article on whether women attorneys should use esquire. See Richard B. Eaton, An Historical View of the Term Esquire as Used by Modern Women Attorneys, 80 W. Va. L. Rev. 209 (1978)." Id.<BR/><BR/>Garner provides this answer to the question of whether "others should append [Esq.] to women attorneys' names": "this practice is perfectly acceptable and extremely common. Anyone who is bothered by this practice should pretend that Esq., when used after a woman's name, stands for esquiress (recorded in the OED from 1596)." Id.Dwight Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11657981110237418710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-81140599912030466622008-06-23T11:33:00.000-04:002008-06-23T11:33:00.000-04:00I've always been taught that you address a person ...I've always been taught that you address a person as either Mr/Ms/Mrs/Miss OR Esq but not both. I believe that's the rule Mr. Fidell was referring to in his question/comment.egnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00780985351955990209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-57122339858748760352008-06-23T10:40:00.000-04:002008-06-23T10:40:00.000-04:00Gene,Because it's 2008 and the great majority of f...Gene,<BR/><BR/>Because it's 2008 and the great majority of forward-thinking people believe that women and men are equal. Do you also have a problem with NMCCA referring to the female lawyer in the case as "Esq."?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34853720.post-64808895397213030272008-06-22T23:15:00.000-04:002008-06-22T23:15:00.000-04:00And why refer to an attorney as both "Mr." and "Es...And why refer to an attorney as both "Mr." and "Esq."?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com