After more than four decades in legal practice, I have observed a subtle but telling shift in how lawyers address one another – particularly the increasing use of “Dear Colleague” in correspondence.
While I understand the intent behind this phrase, I find it impersonal and, at times, unnecessarily formal. In my experience, it can inadvertently set a adversarial tone, especially when the matter at hand is already contentious. It creates distance where familiarity exists, and formality where civility would suffice.
In earlier years, it was customary to address senior practitioners as “Dear Mr/Ms [Surname],” and peers or friends simply as “Dear [First Name].”
These conventions reflected both respect and professional rapport. They helped establish a tone of mutual recognition and courtesy—qualities that are essential in legal practice.
I believe we should strive to treat each other as friends, not foes. That begins with how we speak to one another. A simple “Dear George” or “Dear Mr Conomos” acknowledges the person behind the profession and sets a tone of collegiality rather than confrontation.
I raise this not out of pedantry, but in the hope of sparking a broader conversation about how we communicate with one another. Words matter. The way we address each other sets the tone for the professional relationship that follows.
I welcome others’ views on this, and hope Proctor might consider raising this observation to open the discussion.
George Conomos
Solicitor-Principal
Conomos Lawyers
6 Responses
I’ve always thought of Dear Colleagues as collegiate. It may convey a range of things along the lines of … ‘we’re in the same boat’ or ‘we share something in common’ or ‘we’re part of the same profession’ or ‘Just like you I’m complying with my legal obligation to follow my client’s lawful instructions’ and ‘it’s nothing personal’.
It is certainly a welcome move away from ‘Dear Sirs’.
What really matters, is all the words that follow in the letter – how you choose to convey tone, frame arguments and whether you remain dispassioned or make it personal.
I agree with you. If I know the lawyer name. I will use her/his first name. But if s/he keeps on responding as “Dear Colleagues”, I will take it as they want to keep distance and I will response back as “Dear Colleagues”
30 years ago when I was a student boarding at the residence of Law Professor Brian Coote (Auckland University), he still ask me and all his students called him Professor Coote. Most of professors nowadays prefer to use first names
After almost as long in practice, I absolutely agree. Another example of raising walls is the horrible practice of starting emails with “Good morning” instead of the name of the person being addressed.
Dear colleague (aka Mr Conomos),
I commence nearly all letters with ‘Dear Colleagues’.
The Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary Fourth Edition defines ‘colleague’ as ‘a fellow official or worker, esp. in a profession or business’.
I regard it as a term of respect. The definition supports this. I do not think it is any different to ‘Dear Sir/madam’. It is not confrontational.
You say: “A simple “Dear George” or “Dear Mr Conomos” acknowledges the person behind the profession and sets a tone of collegiality rather than confrontation.” Ironically, the definition of ‘collegial’ from the same dictionary referred to above is “relating to or involving share responsibility, as amongst a group of colleagues’. If you are striving for ‘collegiality’ then addressing a fellow lawyer as ‘colleague’ fits the bill.
Further, a standard precedent letter that commences ‘Dear Colleagues’ has far less chance of the recipient’s name being incorrectly spelt and, in my experience, nothing annoys and upsets the recipient more that than the incorrect spelling of his or her name.
I would only address you as George, if we knew each other well and we were friendly. But if we do not know each other that well then because of our shared legal membership there is an implied need for respect, you are therefore my colleague.
I agree that words and respect matter but I otherwise completely disagree with your article.
Regards
Matthew Yates
mylegal
I consider the salutation “Dear Colleague” or “Dear Colleagues” to be a professional and respectful form of address, particularly within legal correspondence. In contrast, I find it somewhat informal, and at times discourteous—when correspondence begins simply with a first name or a first and last name, without any greeting. Personally, I would not send a letter or email without a salutation such as “Dear,” or even “Good morning” as omitting it can make the communication appear abrupt or impersonal. It would be better to address the message as “ATTN: [Name]” and proceeding directly to the body of the email, than merely just saying someone’s name. However, the one which is most annoying is “Dear Messrs” or Messers [Insert name of law firm here] or Dear Sir.
Further, as someone who identifies as female and does not have a unisex name, I find it both surprising and disrespectful when I receive correspondence, particularly from colleagues who have met me in person, that addresses me using male honorifics or references. In a profession that prides itself on precision and respect, such oversights are not merely clerical; they reflect a lack of basic courtesy and attention to detail. Proper and respectful modes of address should be a given in all professional communications.
I’m grateful to George for starting this conversation.
As to salutations; it’s tricky. “Dear Colleagues” might be perceived as adversarial (or officious etc), when it’s intended as collegial (as Rebecca points out), and respectful (as Matthew points out). At the other end of the spectrum, “Hi X” (or “Morning X, or even “Dear X”) might be perceived as overly familiar, or even disrespectful (or insolent etc), when the writer is actually trying to project civility (and perhaps to set the relationship on a footing that will help promote the possibility of a negotiated outcome). Because conventions have been diluted (and whether or not that’s a good thing is a separate subject), we’re all at risk of being perceived as projecting a particular tone or approach that was never intended.
As to the broader topic of how we communicate with one another, the greater danger obviously lies beyond salutations. I’m as quick to take umbrage as anyone else (as I did earlier today), and as prone as anyone else to giving offence (which I did last week). If I was to practice what I preach, however, then I would do my reasonable best to avoid giving offence (to the extent an advocate is in control of that), and I would give my colleagues the benefit of the doubt when interpreting their communications to me.