As a court reporter, it is standard for us to indicate who is speaking by putting, e.g., “MR. JONES:” and then follow with his comments. I have questions regarding how to indicate individuals when “Mr.” or “Ms.” is not sufficient.
When a former chief justice of a state supreme court speaks, is it preferred to keep the title and put “CHIEF JUSTICE (last name):” or “CHIEF JUSTICE (full name):” or “THE HONORABLE (full name):” or “MR. JONES:” or something else?
As to a person who is currently serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals, should that person be shown as “THE HONORABLE (full name):” or something else? Can one serve without being a judge?
Thanks very much for your help, as I do not want to indicate disrespect by not using the correct title.
— Sandi Lyonnaise
Dear Sandi,
You write: As a court reporter, it is standard for us to indicate who is speaking by putting, e.g., “MR. JONES:” and then follow with his comments. I have questions regarding how to indicate individuals when “Mr.” or “Ms.” is not sufficient.
The issue here is what is a form of address? vs. what is the editorial style to use when referring to a person in the third person in text — so the reader will be clear who you are discussing?
Your question is a matter of editorial style rather than a form of address. In a court report, if a person has a special function, it makes sense to continue to use his or her “title” for clarity … rather than just “Mr./Ms.”
A form of address is what you use when directly speaking or writing TO the person. The President of the United States is directly addressed as “Mr. President” and referred to by his staff as “The President” His name is never used.
However, reporters refer to him as “Obama” “Barack Obama” “President Obama” and even “Mr. Obama.” None of those are forms of address … but are clear in news report who the reporter is referring to.
If you meet him … call him “Mr. President” … not “President Obama.”
You write: When a former chief justice of a state supreme court speaks, is it preferred to keep the title and put “CHIEF JUSTICE (last name):” or “CHIEF JUSTICE (full name):” or “THE HONORABLE (full name):” or “MR. JONES:” or something else?
If they are speaking from an official position… then you could refer to them as a “Justice”
If not … “The Honorable” would be complete correct and more accurate, since he continues to be “The Honorable” forever.
Since there is only one chief justice, a former chief justice is not formally addressed as “chief justice” since it would be disrespectful to the current office holder. Especially in the present of a current “Chief Justice.”
You write: As to a person who is currently serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals, should that person be shown as “THE HONORABLE (full name):” or something else? Can one serve without being a judge?
A judge is “The Honorable (Full Name)” in writing … and in a salutation or conversationally is “Judge (Surname).
If he or she is on a court … he or she is a judge or justice as far as I know.
Wow. that was a lot!
If this sort of thing comes up often, you need a copy of my book!
– Robert Hickey www.formsofaddress.info
Leave a Reply