Kinsella Law

Previously I whined (2) about lawyers using the title “Dr.” simply because they have a JD degree. As I noted,

More annoying than “attorney-at-law” is the practice of some attorneys of using the title “Doctor.” Although there is apparently some dispute over this, I view it as misleading, cheesy, unseemly, and self-embarrassing for a lawyer to refer to himself as “Doctor” such-and-such. In addition, the law degree is usually a Juris Doctor (J.D.), yet many lawyers insist on calling it a a “Juris Doctorate”, I suppose out of ignorance or to make it sound more impressive. (Note: a few law schools apparently do use “Juris Doctorate” on their diplomas—improperly, in my view.)

Some dude alerted me to this May 2004 opinion of the Professional Ethics Committee of the Supreme Court of Texas, which considers the question,

May a lawyer use, in connection with his or her name, the titles “Doctor,” “Dr.,” “Doctor of Jurisprudence,” or “J.D.” in social and professional communications?

The Committee says that previously, in 1968, the Committed “issued an opinion concluding that a lawyer in most circumstances could not ethically use titles such as “Doctor,” “Dr.,” or “J.D.” “… orally or in writing, professional or otherwise ….” because such use was self-laudation prohibited by Texas Canon 24 ….” In other words, you couldn’t say “Dr. Kinsella” because it was too crass.

But now that the bar approves legal specialization and lawyer advertising, “the stated basis for Opinion 344 no longer exists.” So, calling yourself “Dr.” might still be crass and it might still “tend[] to lower the tone of the profession,” but this is simply no longer prohibited.

The Committee goes on to ask whether the use of Dr. as a title for a lawyer is contrary to rules “that prohibit any form of communication that is false or misleading.” The Committee concludes that

the use of the title “Dr.,” “Doctor,” “J.D.” or “Doctor of Jurisprudence” is not, in itself, prohibited as constituting a false or misleading communication. The Committee recognizes that other professions, such as educators, economists and social scientists, traditionally use title “Dr.” in their professional names to denote a level of advanced education and not to imply formal medical training. There is no reason in these circumstances to prohibit lawyers with a Juris Doctor or Doctor of Jurisprudence degree from indicating the advanced level of their education.

They do say that in some contexts–e.g., where a lawyer is advertising “for legal services in connection with medical malpractice”, then the use of the title “Dr.” might be misleading if it implies that the lawyer is a medical doctor. But in general, since the lawyer does have a Juris Doctor, and since most people would not think “Dr. Smith” implies an M.D. (since many non-M.D.’s, such as Ph.D.’s, are referred to as “Doctor”), it is not misleading for a lawyer to use the title Doctor.

Now, I do not disagree with this. I still believe it is cheesy, unseemly, self-embarrassing, pompous, and pathetic–it is just that these things are not prohibited by lawyers’ ethical rules, nor should they be. I suppose I agree that it is not misleading; when I said previously I think it’s misleading, I meant that I believe it implies the lawyer has a post-JD degree–a “real” legal doctorate. The Committee apparently did not consider this possible issue, but whether “Dr.” is misleading in implying medical specialty.

Update:

• Any Lawyer Who Calls Himself ‘Doctor’ Like a Ph.D. Should Get Punched in the Mouth
• Is A J.D. Degree The Same As A P.h.D??
• Is a J.D. a Doctorate?

Update: From Bryan Garner’s twitter:

Bryan A. Garner ‏@BryanAGarner

“@UHLawSchool: I learned that JD is an abbreviation for Juris Doctor. I see Juris Doctorate everywhere. Is this variant correct?” No.

And this post:

JD is the degree

by  Zearfoss, Sarah  on 7/18/2011 10:30 AM

One of life’s great indulgences is the cognoscente’s feeling of smug superiority when others get some inside-baseball bit of information wrong. It’s a heady amalgam of emotions—lamenting how the world is going to hell while simultaneously assuring yourself that it is, at any rate, not YOUR fault. And I have noted in my own case that the impulse is exacerbated when I learned the key bit of information relatively late in life. I suppose the increased degree of smugness is borne of overcompensation. There are things that I can actually remember learning as an adult, and yet they still elicit a quick, happy disdain in my heart when someone else gets them wrong.

I’m not alone in this, I’m sure. Once, while out of town for a law school conference, I had dinner with a faculty member—let’s call him Professor Black—who might reasonably be described as combative; he also invited someone from another law school. At dinner, Professor Black told a little story using the term “schadenfreude”; when our dinner companion chuckled, Professor Black challenged him, gleefully: “Do you even know what schadenfreude means?” No, the dinner companion was compelled to confess; he did not. It is hard to describe the level of exultation this confession elicited in Professor Black—the word “cackling” comes to mind. Meanwhile, I contemplated stabbing myself in the eyes with my dinner fork. My bystander-mortification didn’t stop me from retailing this story as soon as I returned to Michigan, mind you. And that’s how I learned, from the first person I told (we’ll call him, let’s see, Professor Schmiller), that he had introduced Professor Black to the word schadenfreude a mere week or so before. I’m happy to report that Professor Schmiller’s resulting glee and exultation in learning of his colleague’s behavior surpassed even Professor Black’s at the time of the incident.

Hilarious though it may be, this behavior is not attractive. Clearly, we should all struggle to better ourselves and overcome such impulses. But I haven’t reached that plane of development. I’m a flawed individual, and this flaw happens to be right up my alley. While I aspire to self-improvement, it just hasn’t happened yet. (Let’s be honest; it may never come. I don’t try as hard as I ought.)

So let me throw up my hands and share with you a mistake that elicits an unbecoming smirk in me. The degree people get when they graduate from law school is a JD. What does it stand for? Juris doctor. It does NOT stand for juris doctorate. “Juris doctorate” is not an actual thing.

The fact that many people get this wrong has been striking me forcibly of late, as I am involved in three separate searches for administrative positions to be filled at the Law School. The number of job applicants who erroneously identify themselves as possessing “juris doctorates” has been astonishing—although somewhat less astonishing than the fact that if you Google the term “juris doctorate,” you will find webpages of multiple law schools touting that degree.

But now I have performed a small public service, perhaps decreasing the number of people who might have made that mistake, which in turn might lead to fewer instances of bad behavior on my part. And who knows? Maybe someday I will actually improve my fundamentals.

-Dean Z.
Assistant Dean for Admissions
and Special Counsel for Professional Strategies

I recall we had this problem in one of my electrical engineering courses, studying packet communications between computers. Unfortunately, I’ve forgotten the answer and it’s driven me nuts for years. If anyone knows, email me.

You have 2 armies, on opposite hilltops. They are allied against an enemy army in the valley between them. Sometimes the 2 armies send runners to send messages to each other. The runners sometimes get killed–say, 1% of the time. So you can’t be 100% sure a message makes it to the recipient.

Now say they 2 armies can defeat the enemy if they attack togehter, but if attacking alone, eihter one will lose. Army 1 wants to attack at sunrise. So they send a runner to 2. But the dilemma is, Army 1 needs to get a message back knowing Army 2 got the message and will attack too. Army 1 can’t assume 2 gets the message since the runner might be killed.

Now Army 2, even if it gets the first message, and wants to attack, wants to be sure 1 got the reply, so 2 does not attack alone.

The question was: is it possible to arrange a communication scheme, given a less than 100% chance of message success, so that they can both attack?

It seems to me NO, but I wonder. It seems to me that to attack you have to have 100% certainty your message made it, and so does the other guy. This must be impossible. You can have an arbitrarily high confidence if you do enough handshaking, I suppose, but you can never be sure. Anyone know if I’m right?

My latest IP article: There’s No Such Thing as a Free Patent, Mises.org, Mar. 7, 2004.

6,859,481: Optically-pumped multiple-quantum well active region with improved distribution of optical pumping power.

test ignore

Some email from an old post about lawyers using the title “doctor”:

—–Original Message—–
From: Stephan Kinsella [mailto:Stephan@KinsellaLaw.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 11:20 AM
To: ‘David Janson’
Subject: RE: Sorry-JD
Importance: High

Thanks for your comments.

Some of your points are good ones; some of my arguments are kind of silly, like the “doctor doctor” one. However, your extended argument is futile; it’s like trying to argue a word “should” have a certain defintion; but it does not work this way; words DO have certain meanings by common usage and convention. Likewise, no matter what you say, it is just “not done” to call a lawyer a doctor. If any lawyer calls himself a doctor he is just an insecure, pretentious weirdo, in my view. PhD’s can barely get away with it; medical doctors are the common usage. But JD–no way.

I agree w/ you that many PhD’s now are a joke, but that is a sign of the times. Just b/c you can get a PhD in stupid things now does not mean that law ought to just be folded into the word.

It’s just not gonna happen.

” The Supreme Court of Texas has said a lawyer can use the title “Doctor””

Where is this? I would be curious to see it.

” You say you consider it vain and even embarrassing for a lawyer to use the term “Doctor”. You have your opinion,”

Correct. It’s my view. It still is.

” and thats great, but
I on the other hand DO THINK the profession needs the recoginition it deserves.”

Oh, I don’t. Lawyers are by and large pretentious assholes, don’t you agree?

” I am sure you have noticed all the garbage which is said about lawyers being unethical, and that they are liars who only want money.”

That is true for some of them; but I don’t think it’s really the main problem. the main problem is they are greedy, selfish, workaholic bullies. Lots of them, anyway.

” I dont know about you, but I do not like the jokes and the stereotypes.”

Honestly, I don’t really care. I have thick skin. Being a libertarian makes you develop one!

“This profession was a noble one, and people like you help to take that away.”

This is unfair. I’m a good attorney–a competent and honest and decent and nice one. Just because I *recognize* the current disrepute into which laywers *have fallen*–due to the actions of the slimes and jerks–does not mean it’s my fault. You are blaming the messenger.

” The jokes and stereotypes are usually by ignorant people who dont know anything about the profession or how the legal system works, the difficulties a lawyer faces, and the ethics involved. Lawyers in fact need to be pretty strict in their ethics or they can easily be disbarred due to the strict ethical rules they must follow.”

Yes, I do agree with this. I often tell people lawyers are much more ethical than they realize; and also, much of the bad rap lawyers get is because clients are pigheaded and insiste on suing etc., even when the lawyer tries to talk them out of it. I do not disagree with you at all. But I think there is nothing wrong with jokes and stereotypes; this is natural and normal human behavior.

” I am not saying lawyers should be able to be called
doctor just because the profession needs the respect;
I am saying they can be called doctors because they do
have doctorates,”

Law degrees say “Juris doctor”, not “juris doctorate”, I believe. I don’t think they are doctorates. A long time ago it was an LL.B. Just because the decided to change the NAME of the degree does not all of a sudden make it a doctorate. That’s my view. Anywya, it does not matter. Any lawyer who calls himself “Doctor” sounds like a pretentious fop. Do you not agree with it?

” and collaterally, the profession
certainly could use the bolster in respect which MAY
come from it. “

I really do not know why people say this. What do you mean the profession “needs” a bostering of respect…? Why? Do we need more money? or what? What exactly are you saying? I am serious, I am not being combative. I don’t know what you mean. Are you saying lawyers are miserable because of this… that we don’t attract enough potential law students? That we have a shortage of lawyers? What?

” A JD is a degree which is conferred after a B.A.
Yes, a BA in anything, but as noted, one can obtain
doctorates in many fields without undergraduate
training in the same field. Maybe you are not proud
of the school you went to and/or the education you
received. Unlike you, I am, and I dont consider it to
be vain or embarrassing. Just as any other person who
has a doctorate is not considered vain when he uses
the term “doctor”, neither should a lawyer. “

I’m proud of it, sure. But I realize I had a lot of idiots as fellow calssmates. What do you call someoen who graduates at the bottom of his class in law school? A: a lawyer.

I know that my degree in EE was mcuh more difficult. You have to be pretty sharp to get that. Law is not that special. Lawyers want to be seen as special.

” A JD is not obtained more easily than a PH.D., or
more easily than most other doctorates for that
matter. Not that a JD is terribly hard to get, but
neither are many doctorates.”

You could be right… but I think it’s easy to just put your 3 years in and get a JD. A PhD is different. but they are being diluted now, I agree.

” As far as lawyers “vain
attempt” to garner recognition, as a lawyer, you
should support such efforts, and recognize the
advanced education of a J.D.”

Why? Seriously, why should we support efforts to gain recognition? What is the reason yo usay this, what is the purpose of it? Why is there a glaring need? PLease explian to me where you are coming from.

” If not, do us all a
favor and pursue something else. (Talk about vain! YOU
have a picture of yourself on your site which one can
click on for it to be greatly enlarged! Thats
funny!!!) “

come on, don’t get silly or personal. Why would I do you afavor and pursue something else? I’m a good attorney ,an excellent one. Why would I muzzle myself and keep my opinions to myself? FUrther, it’s not vain to have my PR pic up there, I write a lot and often publishers want to see a high-res portrait, so it’s available. It’s not vain at all. I am not good looking enough to be vain!

Best, Stephan

—–Original Message—–
From: David Janson [mailto:davidj512@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 11:00 AM
To: stephan@kinsellalaw.com
Subject: Sorry-JD

A J.D. is defined as being a professional doctoral degree/doctorate, similar to a M.D. Just as Medical Doctors can use the term Doctor, therefore, a lawyer who has been conferred a JD can also use such a title.

You ask if a person who has a JD and subsequently
obtains a SJD is a “Doctor Doctor”. Umm, NO, he is
still addressed as “Doctor”, just as a person with a
JD and and MD or a person with two Ph.D.s is still
called “Doctor”. You obviously dont call a person
with two Doctorates, whether they are Ph.D.s or
whatever, “Doctor Doctor”. I submit, therefore, that
your question on that matter is a silly one.
You also indicate that since a lawyer can have an
undergrad degree in anything, he should not be able
to indicate that he has a doctorate (as if to say
other doctorates necessitate undergrad training in a
discipline related to the doctoral discipline). Here
too, you are ignorant. As a former academic advisor,
I can assure you there are many fields one can pursue
and obtain a doctorate in (an
d use the title “Doctor”) regardless of his undergrad degree; business is one of them. One need not have a BBA to obtain either an MBA or to go directly into a DBA or Ph.D. program in business.
In addition, hours required toward the JD and Ph.D.
and other doctorates are similar. As you know, JDs
take 15 or so hrs a semester, while other grad
students consider 9 hrs full time study. As for the
doctoral dissertation, many doctoral programs do not
require one, such as the DBA (Doctor of Business
Administration) for one.
The Supreme Court of Texas has said a lawyer can use
the title “Doctor”. You say you consider it vain and
even embarrassing for a lawyer to use the term
“Doctor”. You have your opinion, and thats great, but
I on the other hand DO THINK the profession needs the recoginition it deserves. I am sure you have noticed all the garbage which is said about lawyers being unethical, and that they are liars who only want money. I dont know about you, but I do not like the jokes and the stereotypes. This profession was a noble one, and people like you help to take that away. The jokes and stereotypes are usually by ignorant people who dont know anything about the profession or how the legal system works, the difficulties a lawyer faces, and the ethics involved. Lawyers in fact need to be pretty strict in their ethics or they can easily be disbarred due to the strict ethical rules they must follow.
I am not saying lawyers should be able to be called
doctor just because the profession needs the respect;
I am saying they can be called doctors because they do
have doctorates, and collaterally, the profession
certainly could use the bolster in respect which MAY
come from it.
A JD is a degree which is conferred after a B.A.
Yes, a BA in anything, but as noted, one can obtain
doctorates in many fields without undergraduate
training in the same field. Maybe you are not proud
of the school you went to and/or the education you
received. Unlike you, I am, and I dont consider it to
be vain or embarrassing. Just as any other person who
has a doctorate is not considered vain when he uses
the term “doctor”, neither should a lawyer.
A JD is not obtained more easily than a PH.D., or
more easily than most other doctorates for that
matter. Not that a JD is terribly hard to get, but
neither are many doctorates. As far as lawyers “vain
attempt” to garner recognition, as a lawyer, you
should support such efforts, and recognize the
advanced education of a J.D. If not, do us all a
favor and pursue something else. (Talk about vain! YOU
have a picture of yourself on your site which one can
click on for it to be greatly enlarged! Thats
funny!!!)
Perhaps youll consider putting this on your site to
show both sides.

Respectfully and Sincerely,
David Jansen, J.D.

I received this official-looking $1450 “invoice” the other day. I have a European trademark registration pending so at first glance thought I owed this. But looking further, it’s just some stupid scam. Amazing. I bet lots of legal departments just pay it.

And fight the PC police–

ALERT: HOPPE UNDER ATTACK BY PC POLICE

Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe is under attack by the PC police. As suggested by David Beito, all scholars and academics in favor of academic freedom, and all lovers of liberty and Hoppe’s supporters are urged to follow Beito’s suggestions to help support Hoppe and the cause of academic freedom. Contact info for people to email/fax (here).

In addition to Beito’s suggestions, publicity from the likes of Ann Coulter, David Horowitz, O’Reilly, Hannity & Colmes, Rush Limbaugh, Drudge can only help. Write them too…

Recently found this oldie but goodie: my Economic Calculation Under Socialism, Appendix I to Protecting Foreign Investment Under International Law: Legal Aspects of Political Risk (1997).