Why have some people thought the 13th Amendment is about attorneys?
The has been some debate in the past as to the usage of the term "Esquire", still used by many attorneys today. Originally, there was no Bar Association in the United States, and those attorneys who were members of a Bar Association at all belonged to the Bar Association in Great Britain. If "Esquire" was considered to be a "title of nobility" as prohibited by the Constitution of the United States, then these people would be in violation of American law, and under the 13th Amendment, would lose their citizenship. We have since found that many of the participants in the ratification of the 13th Amendment used the term "Esquire" themselves, and sometimes right in the official correspondence pertaining to the ratification of the 13th Amendment itself. Therefore, if that particular affectation was thought by some to come under the prohibitions against titles of nobility, then it certainly wasn't seen that way by the gentlemen who wrote, supported, and actually ratified the amendment themselves.
I am humoring you by talking about an Amendment that does not even exist. Hmm, what does that say about me? Me thinks I should stick to trying to disabuse people about real problems in government.
Someone needs to tell these people the difference between a title and an affectation.
You are free to call yourself a biscuit tin in this country if you'd like, but that doesn't make you one.
Titles of nobility are only efficacious if bestowed by someone having requisite authority--a monarch--as recognized within the context of a nation's laws and traditions. In this country, an attorney who adopts the title "esquire" is adopting an honorific that absolutely no one is bound by the law to recognize. Any US citizen might call himself an knight, an earl, a grand duke, or even a crown prince and it would mean absolutely nothing.