As a content creator for thebootdoctor.net, specializing in insightful explorations of professional titles and their implications, I’ve encountered a fascinating debate within the legal and academic worlds: “Are Lawyers Doctors?” This question stems from the fact that lawyers in many countries graduate with a Juris Doctor (JD) degree. My journey into this topic began unexpectedly during my time as an adjunct professor while simultaneously practicing law since 1988. An interaction with a student in a judge’s chamber sparked a deeper investigation into why, despite holding a doctorate-level degree, lawyers in America are often discouraged from using the title “Dr.”
This exploration isn’t merely academic. It touches upon issues of professional respect, historical precedent, and evolving perceptions of legal education. Having also served as an ordained minister, where the title “Dr.” is increasingly common, I’ve witnessed firsthand the varying applications and acceptance of this honorific. This article delves into the complexities of this issue, examining the history of the JD, the arguments for and against using “Dr.,” and ultimately advocating for a reevaluation of this long-standing tradition within the American legal profession.
A Personal Encounter with the “Dr.” Title in Legal Academia
My personal experience with this issue arose when I accepted an adjunct position at a local college while maintaining my legal practice. One day, a student who worked as an administrative assistant for a local judge addressed me as “doctor” while scheduling a hearing in the judge’s chambers. Later, in the elevator, another attorney present at the meeting questioned, with a hint of sarcasm, whether I possessed another doctoral degree besides my Juris Doctor. This seemingly minor incident ignited my curiosity and prompted a deeper examination of the conventions surrounding the title “Dr.” for legal professionals.
This wasn’t an isolated incident. Later, while participating in a planning committee for a Martin Luther King commemoration, my title was listed as “Pastor” with the suffix “Esq.” A judge on the committee objected to this combination, arguing that since the JD is indeed a doctorate, the correct title for clergy with a JD should be “The Rev. Dr.” These experiences underscored the inconsistent and often perplexing attitudes towards the JD degree and the use of “Dr.” within both legal and academic circles.
The Historical Evolution of the Juris Doctor Degree
To understand the reluctance to recognize lawyers as “doctors,” it’s crucial to delve into the history of the Juris Doctor degree itself. The perception challenge partly arises from the fact that the American law degree was once considered a Bachelor of Laws (LLB), an undergraduate qualification.
From LLB to JD: A Graduate Degree Emerges
Harvard University first awarded the LLB in 1820 as an undergraduate degree. However, throughout the 20th century, there was a growing movement to elevate the law degree to a graduate-level qualification. The faculty of Harvard Law School initially proposed awarding the JD degree as early as 1902, but it was not approved by the university at that time. The University of Chicago Law School, which was ahead of its time in requiring a college degree for applicants, became the first to confer the JD upon its graduates in 1903.
The shift towards law school becoming primarily a graduate education solidified in the mid-20th century. A four-year bachelor’s degree became a prerequisite for law school entry, reflecting the increasingly rigorous and specialized nature of legal studies. As a 2012 blog post from Marquette University Law School explains, “Between 1964 and 1969, at the encouraging of the American Bar Association, most American law schools … upgraded their basic law degree from the traditional” LLB to JD “to reflect the (by then) almost-universal postgraduate status of the degree.” Despite this upgrade to a postgraduate status, the tradition of not using “Dr.” for JD holders persisted in America.
European Precedent: Doctorates in Law
Interestingly, the tradition of awarding doctorate degrees actually began in law. The very first doctorate degree was bestowed in Bologna, Italy, in the 12th century, initially in civil law, followed by canon law, medicine, grammar, and other fields. To this day, continental European countries continue to award doctorate degrees in law and commonly use the honorific title “Dr.” for lawyers holding these degrees. This stark contrast highlights the unique and somewhat isolated stance of the American legal profession on this issue.
The Lingering Debate: Why Lawyers Hesitate to Use “Dr.”
Several factors contribute to the ongoing debate and the hesitation within the American legal profession to embrace the title “Dr.” for JD holders. These include historical professional advertising restrictions and misconceptions about the academic rigor of the JD degree.
Historical Restrictions and ABA Opinions
The American legal profession’s historical reluctance to allow lawyers to advertise or promote their degrees has played a role in the confusion surrounding the “Dr.” title. In Formal Opinion 183, issued in 1938, the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility deemed it “improper” for lawyers to include any conferred degrees on their professional letterhead. The rationale was that such inclusions “would serve no purpose other than to advertise the qualification of the lawyer,” as noted by the San Diego County Bar Association.
However, attitudes evolved over time. Thirty-one years later, Formal Opinion 321 (1969) acknowledged the need to update Formal Opinion 183. The ABA committee recognized the appropriateness of using “Dr.” in “reputable law lists, on academic occasions and in academic circles when in accordance with the customs of the school and when dealing with lawyers and others abroad in countries in which lawyers are referred to as ‘doctor.’” Despite this shift, the committee maintained a degree of reservation, stating, “Until the time comes when the JD degree is the universal degree for the initial study of law (as the MD degree is in medicine) we can see no reason to permit the professional use of this degree, so as to distinguish its holder as compared with others who hold a different degree.”
Today, the JD is the universal degree for the initial study of law in the United States. This historical justification for restricting the use of “Dr.” has become increasingly obsolete.
The Dissertation Misconception
Another argument sometimes raised against using “Dr.” for lawyers is the perception that law school lacks a final research project or dissertation, unlike the PhD. However, this argument overlooks the intensely research-oriented nature of legal education. Anyone who has undergone law school training can attest that research is fundamental to the entire three-year curriculum and permeates virtually every course. Legal analysis, writing, and argumentation are all deeply rooted in rigorous research methodologies.
Furthermore, it’s important to note that other terminal degrees, such as the Doctor of Education (EdD), often do not require a dissertation component and are sometimes perceived as less intellectually demanding than a JD. Despite this, EdD holders are routinely addressed as “Dr.” This inconsistency further highlights the somewhat arbitrary nature of the resistance to using “Dr.” for Juris Doctors.
Arguments for Using “Dr.” for Juris Doctors
The arguments against using “Dr.” for JD holders are increasingly weak and outdated. Conversely, compelling reasons support the recognition and acceptance of “Dr.” as an appropriate title for legal professionals with a Juris Doctor degree.
JD as a Terminal Degree
The Juris Doctor is unequivocally a terminal degree, representing the highest professional degree in law. It signifies a rigorous course of graduate-level study and prepares individuals for the practice of law, a profession demanding significant expertise and intellectual capability. To deny JD holders the title “Dr.” while readily extending it to other terminal degree holders creates an unwarranted and illogical distinction.
Parallels with Other Doctorates
Comparing the JD to other doctoral degrees, particularly professional doctorates like the MD (Doctor of Medicine), further strengthens the case for using “Dr.” Just as the MD is the terminal degree for medical practice, the JD is the terminal degree for legal practice. Both degrees require extensive postgraduate education, rigorous training, and the development of specialized expertise in their respective fields. The rationale for using “Dr.” for medical doctors applies equally to legal professionals holding a JD.
Professional and Academic Recognition
In academic settings and professional interactions, the absence of the “Dr.” title can sometimes place JD holders at a disadvantage. As someone who has served in university leadership, I experienced this firsthand. During an interview for a university presidency, I was a semifinalist among a pool of candidates largely composed of PhD and EdD holders, all of whom were addressed as “Dr.” When I was referred to as “doctor,” I corrected the interviewer, feeling a subtle but noticeable limitation in this academic environment. Later, the university president, who held both a JD and a PhD, advised me against correcting anyone who used the title “Dr.” for me, affirming that the JD is indeed a doctorate.
Interestingly, the individual who ultimately secured that university presidency was a JD who did use the title “Dr.” during the interview process. However, after assuming the presidency, he reportedly faced scrutiny and subsequently ceased using the title. This anecdote underscores the nuanced and sometimes contentious nature of this issue, even at the highest levels of academia.
Moving Forward: Time for Universal Acceptance
While traditional titles like “counselor” and “professor” remain appropriate and widely used in legal and academic contexts, the formal and universal acceptance of “Dr.” for JD holders is overdue. The unofficial prohibition and academic reservations surrounding this title are outdated, unnecessary, and warrant formal reconsideration.
The ABA has already removed historical limitations on the use of the title. It is now time to move beyond outdated traditions and formally establish a framework for the universal acceptance of “Dr.” for those who hold the Juris Doctor degree and choose to use it. This would align the American legal profession with international norms, acknowledge the doctoral-level rigor of the JD, and afford legal professionals the professional respect commensurate with their education and expertise. Further discussion and formal action are needed to finally resolve this lingering question and bring clarity and consistency to the use of professional titles within the legal field.
See also:
ABAJournal.com: “What do we call a lawyer? A look at attorney titles”
David M. Fryson, the senior pastor of the New First Baptist Church of Kanawha City in West Virginia, is a retired lawyer and a retired founding vice president of West Virginia University’s Division of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. Fryson currently is a national diversity consultant.
ABAJournal.com is accepting queries for original, thoughtful, nonpromotional articles and commentary by unpaid contributors to run in the Your Voice section. Details and submission guidelines are posted at “Your Submissions, Your Voice.”
This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.
