“Dr. Whitaker, I presume?” (Wrongly), or
Why Those in With Juris Doctor Degrees Are Not Called “Doctor”
The American law degree, a Juris Doctor (or sometimes Doctor of Jurisprudence; both JD), is a three-year professional degree known (or once known) for its considerable rigor—especially when combined with the bar exam that for most graduates follows immediately afterward. The degree was once called a Bachelor of Laws (LLB), but by the latter half of the 20th century had changed to its current nomenclature. This was in recognition of its graduate character, its requirement of a four-year bachelor’s degree as prerequisite, and its being decidedly longer than almost all master’s degrees. (The Master of Divinity [MDiv] is a notable exception, and has no less than the same semester-hour requirements as the JD).
Those who have the Juris Doctor conferred at their law-school graduations don a purple-velvet-trimmed, bell-sleeved doctoral gown, sport a gold tassel on their mortarboard, and are hooded with the longer doctoral hood—all marks of their receiving a doctorate.
You are watching: Can You Call A Lawyer Doctor
Some of those Juris Doctor recipients will find their way to academe, either in law schools or today in greater numbers to undergraduate programs in legal studies, criminal justice, family law, business law, and the like. Many practicing attorneys enjoy adjunct appointments to teach undergraduate (or graduate) courses at schools near them. Many universities have in-house counsel offices. Today, lawyers are hired into other administrative jobs, such as those related to compliance and governance. And an increasing number of college and university presidents are lawyers. In short, it is increasingly common to find holders of Juris Doctor degrees within American universities. And in those universities the title “Doctor,” rightly or wrongly, continues to mark those who are deemed to have the greatest academic accomplishment.
For those lawyers who enter the academic world with faculty rank or duties, almost all institutions would count their JD as a terminal degree for accreditation and other purposes, exactly as they would a PhD. (It is in the school’s interest to claim as high a percentage of doctoral degrees as possible). Indeed, within law schools, most professors have no degrees beyond the JD.
All this is so even though there is a specialized post-JD degree almost always requiring research and a thesis, the Master of Laws (LLM). Moreover, the law does have a true PhD equivalent (or better), the largely unknown and rarely conferred Doctor of Juridical Science, (SJD or JSD), generally offered by law-school invitation and requiring many years’ research and writing. (And the SJD recipient is indisputably entitled to use the title “Doctor.”)
But as the moniker for the basic law degree includes “Doctor,” the question has been asked for many years by those with JDs (inside and outside academe) whether they might use that title.
It would be odd, indeed, outside the academic context for a lawyer to seek to use that title, as it could mislead clients into thinking their attorney had some sort of specialized expertise beyond that of a normal lawyer. And fellow members of the bar, including judges and perhaps State bars, would likely look askance at such conceit and the sort of character that prompts it. The title of a 2011 Above the Law article on this subject summed this sentiment up thus: “Any Lawyer Who Calls Himself ‘Doctor’ Like a PhD Should Get Punched in the Mouth.”
Within the world outside academe this restraint is not unusual. It would likewise be considered odd if those in the business world who held doctorates in, for example, business administration began to call themselves “Doctor.” The convention of those with doctorates (that are not medical doctors, dentists, or veterinarians) not calling themselves “doctor” is in fact the norm outside the academic setting.
See more : How Much Does A Lawyer Cost For Traffic Court
Nonetheless, it is not entirely unreasonable for those lawyers in academe who serve as faculty or administrators to ask the question about the doctor title, especially if they are not engaged in the active practice of law with clients. They no doubt wonder why others with professional doctorates, such as doctors, nurses, and physical therapists (to name just a few), are called “Doctor” in the academic setting while they are not. And certainly today, with the proliferation of specialized doctorates, there are many such degrees with far, far less rigor than a law degree. In the main (except at schools like the University of Virginia, which avoid the “Doctor” title save for medical doctors), those called “Mr.” or “Ms” within a University setting are (except for JDs) those lacking a doctoral credential. Among those with earned doctorates, only the Juris Doctors are not afforded the courtesy of being called “Doctor.”
The ABA opined some years back that there was not a thing wrong with those holding Juris Doctors using the title “Doctor,” and they even seemed to hint, amazingly, that the Juris Doctor, owing to its greater semester-hour classroom requirements, was perhaps more rigorous than the Ph.D. (The opinion gave short shrift to that little thing called a dissertation, and ignored the fact that, practically alone among doctorates, the Juris Doctor does not require a significant culminating research project.)
That ABA assertion, and the consent by some State bars to the title’s use, nonetheless did not change the general practice of lawyers eschewing the title “Doctor.” Even within law schools, the Kingsfields remain “Professor Kingsfield” (or Ms. or Mr. Kingsfield)—never “Dr. Kingsfield.” And if law-school professors are the academic standard-bearers of our profession, as surely they are, that alone should give someone else with a JD pause about seeking to be called “Doctor.”
There are other reasons, however, why calling lawyers “Doctor” within the academic setting is a very bad idea.
First, calling ourselves “Doctor” would harm our credibility with our PhD colleagues especially. It would not be lost on them that our degree, however rigorous it might have been, lacks the research component of theirs (and that of almost all other doctorates). They would see this not only as our taking a title that we have not traditionally used, but also diminishing their own. This is not a good way for lawyers in the academic setting to gain credibility or build good relationships.
Second, insisting on being “Doctor” would seem to suggest some insecurity about one’s academic bona fides without such a title. If anything, this reinforces for any who might be inclined to think it that a law degree is a “mere” professional degree, without a true scholarly character—when, of course, we know that to be anything but the case. But insecure souls usually have some reason for their insecurity, and this could seem to reflect uncertainty on our part about our legitimacy as scholars. Conversely, showing lack of concern about title is a reflection of both confidence and humility—and not a bad example for others in the academic setting who are too often obsessed with their status.
Third, students do not care about the titles before their professors’ names, save in knowing how to address them. In my experience, they are far more excited about having someone teach them who has actually practiced what is being taught than they are about having someone who bears the title “Doctor.” The lawyer-professor enters the classroom with credibility that no title can confer. The title is just not necessary.
Finally, lawyers in academe may be professors, deans, or presidents, but we are still lawyers. We are still part of a profession that transcends our academic endeavors, in ethical and professional obligations and in our service to society. Calling ourselves “Doctor” if we are working in an academic setting would separate us from the larger community of lawyers where using such a title is essentially unheard of but would undoubtedly be thought pompous and pretentious, if not narcissistic. Moreover, it is good for our academic colleagues and students to know we are (perhaps unlike some other academics) not confined in our interests and awareness to a small subset of knowledge or ideas, but are part of a broad, practical, and real-world problem-solving profession as well.
See more : Do You Need Lawyer For I-129f
Certainly a lawyer can within the academic setting use a JD post-nominal to indicate highest degree earned where that is appropriate and traditionally done. And if others mistakenly call a JD in a university setting “Doctor” there is no reason to embarrass them by correcting them, as a JD is in fact a doctorate. (Inviting someone not a student to call one by one’s first name can be a good way around this awkwardness.)
But there is prudence and humility in thinking of a JD’s status as a Doctor as an honorific akin to “Esquire” or (for judges) “The Honorable”—a compliment and address of respect that one might give to another but never properly use oneself or insist that others use. In approaching the matter this way you’ll get credit for a level of humility that is not often associated with those in the legal profession.
Given society’s seeming obsession with titles and credentials, the current practice of Juris Doctors not using the title of “Doctor” might well one day change, for better or worse, depending on one’s perspective. Such a change would seem nonsensical, though, unless law professors first adopt the practice of calling themselves “Doctor,” which seems unlikely, if only because of tradition and the commitment of law professors to stay fully entwined with the legal profession and practice of law. It would also make little sense unless law school requirements add a dissertation equivalent-and that is highly unlikely given the pressure to reduce semester hours so to reduce the cost of law school. (Given the brutal law-school market now, increasing requirements is hardly likely to gain any traction.)
Until there is such a shift, prudence commends that lawyers, including those in academic settings, enjoy our unique status as those with earned doctorates who do not rely on titles or need them to affirm our professionalism, scholarship, erudition, or academic accomplishment.
Because, frankly, if we do our work well, we don’t.
Alexander Whitaker, a lawyer, is president of King University. Mr. Whitaker teaches undergraduate Constitutional Law at King, and has previously taught other undergraduate law-related courses.
Copyright © 2020 by Alexander W. Whitaker IV. Free use and distribution permitted with attribution.
Source: https://tholansonnha.com
Category: lawyer
