Beyond ‘Dear Sirs’: language, inclusion and legal culture

When the Law Society released its updated guidance on inclusive language last month, one might have expected the ensuing discussion to be focussed on the wider issue of society’s interpretation of behaviour towards others.  The Diversity and Inclusion D&Ictionary, where the guidance sits, covers significant ground: it calls on solicitors to use more inclusive terminology, to recognise and challenge unconscious bias, and to foster workplaces where colleagues can “bring their whole selves” to work. These are important and progressive ideas central to the evolution of our profession and expand upon SRA Principle 6.

Yet it was one relatively small piece of that more general advice that has sparked the loudest debate; the suggestion that we should stop opening our correspondence with “Dear Sirs.” It is remarkable, in some ways, that of all the cultural and behavioural expectations outlined in the guidance, this single phrase captured the most attention. Perhaps that is because the salutation is so visible and previously entrenched, even such a minor tweak in how we act can feel like a profound change to the culture of the profession itself.

For some, the move away from Dear Sirs is a long-overdue correction to outdated etiquette. For others, it feels like a step towards informality that risks diluting the dignity that has always underpinned legal practice. Both perspectives deserve to be heard, revealing how the law, as a profession, negotiates change.

The significance of this change in formality

For generations, letters between firms of solicitors have traditionally begun with Dear Sirs. The greeting was so entrenched that few ever paused to question it. 

The Law Society’s new guidance argues that this form of address is now outdated. Since our profession is no longer male-dominated, and correspondence is often addressed to teams or individuals of varied gender, Dear Sirs risks implying exclusion where none is intended. Where the specific name of the recipient is unknown, the Society encourages solicitors to consider gender-neutral alternatives such as Dear Colleagues, Dear Counsel, Dear Legal Team, or simply Good Morning. Even if these particular suggestions do not sit comfortably, they, or a similar, more modern salutation, can still be coupled with the traditional and respectful sign-off “Yours faithfully”, ensuring that professionalism and tone remain intact.

The purpose is not to erode formality, but to ensure that our written communication reflects the modern values of equality and inclusion.

The symbolism of language in Law

It is fair to say that etiquette and formality have long been woven into the fabric of the legal profession. From the way we address the court to the language of our letters, such conventions have historically signified respect, not just for individuals, but for the institutions and traditions of law itself. 

When I began practising, there was an understanding that how one framed correspondence mattered. The salutation, the tone, even the spacing and closing of a letter all contributed to a sense of professionalism. It gave the writer and the firm a certain presence, an important signal of seriousness and care. 

Of course, the world has moved on. We now communicate largely by email, with shorter, plainer messages replacing long, carefully typed letters. But it is understandable that some practitioners feel uneasy at the thought of losing even small fragments of that shared etiquette. 

The conservative concern: the erosion of decorum 

For some legal professionals, there is a grave concern that such changes risk unravelling the subtle codes that have long given the profession its sense of gravitas. The phrase Dear Sirs was not, for many, about gender; it was about formality. 

There is a perception that as professional language becomes more informal, we lose a degree of decorum and hierarchy that once underpinned mutual respect. The concern is not so much with inclusivity as with the broader trend towards informality in public life, one that some fear blurs the lines between professional and personal tone. 

I have heard more than one colleague respond to the new guidance with questions such as “What next?  Will we stop saying Your Honour in court?” This, of course, reflects a legitimate concern that in our eagerness to modernise, we may discard the very language that upholds our sense of dignity and respect.

The progressive argument: inclusion and accessibility 

The progressive argument is that language evolves with society, and inclusivity should never be seen as at odds with professionalism. 

The Law Society’s D&Ictionary highlights that inclusive language is essential to creating workplaces and client relationships without fear of exclusion or bias. The use of gendered greetings, even unintentionally, can reinforce the notion that certain identities belong at the centre of professional life while others exist at its edges. 

Removing Dear Sirs does not, in itself, dismantle bias, but it does send a small, positive signal that the profession is willing to adapt. When more than half of practising solicitors are women, and when our profession is increasingly diverse in background and identity, maintaining a salutation that assumes maleness feels inconsistent with the values we claim to uphold. 

The modern profession is, after all, striving to be more approachable and client-focused. Clearer, more inclusive communication serves not just colleagues but the public who rely on us. In that sense, the change feels less like an act of political correctness and more like a practical step towards a language of equal respect. 

Language as a mirror of society

This discussion also, of course, connects to language evolution as a whole: language evolves and is reflected by societal cultural changes and influences. And as such, The Oxford English Dictionary is updated quarterly with new words, revised definitions, and regular editions to ensure it is relevant to modern times. Lexicographers monitor literature, online communication, and culture to identify and incorporate emerging vocabulary. This can include modern slang, terms that have become established in everyday use, such as “rizz” for charisma, and “wokery” and “woke”, a term relating to being aware of social and racial injustice.

Similarly, legal professional language should evolve to reflect contemporary society, ensuring it is accessible, inclusive, and meaningful.

A broader reflection on change 

What I find most interesting about the Dear Sirs story is that it functions as a microcosm of a much more significant shift: the transition from structured deference to more egalitarian interaction. 

In many facets of social life, professional and day-to-day language is being simplified. The legal profession is not immune to this. But the change is not just textual; it is cultural, and culture matters. We might ask: Is this loss or evolution? 

For those who valued the traditional rituals of law, the gowns, the formal address, and the cadence of letters. it may feel like erosion. For others who value access, equality, and a modern professionalism, it is welcome progress. I believe the challenge for the profession is to ensure that in embracing change, we do not lose what is essential about our identity: seriousness, responsibility, clarity, respect, and yes, formality when warranted. But those qualities do not require gendered or hierarchical language to exist.

Balancing tradition with progress 

At my firm, we welcome inclusivity and the modernisation of professional language. Our firm values equality and progression in every sense, reflected both in the make-up of our teams and in the way we work with clients. That said, we also believe strongly in maintaining the standards and respect that have always defined good legal practice. The two are not incompatible. We can uphold the dignity of our profession while also embracing changes that make it more representative and accessible.

Personally, I have no issue with moving away from Dear Sirs. In practice, many firms, including ours, have already been doing so for some time. In much of my correspondence, particularly in family and litigation work, the salutation will be addressed to a named individual or a neutral greeting such as Dear Colleagues or simply Good Morning. This is not universal, but it is increasingly common, and I have found that such approaches can foster a more open and civil working relationship. In family law, where practitioners often know each other well, this tone can help foster cooperation rather than confrontation. There remains, of course, a place for formality when addressing the judiciary or where teams of lawyers are corresponding, but even there, courtesy need not depend on outdated forms of address.

Equally, I see that many firms now reserve Dear Sirs only for occasions where they are corresponding with unfamiliar firms or where they feel a touch of gravitas is appropriate. Even then, there are perfectly workable alternatives — To whom it may concern, Dear Legal Team, or a simple greeting — that maintain professionalism without implying exclusion. The key is not to discard etiquette but to adapt it thoughtfully.

We have already seen similar shifts elsewhere within the profession. In family law, for instance, Decree Nisi and Decree Absolute have been replaced by Conditional Order and Final Order. This makes the process clearer to the public and aligns with the modern drive towards plain English. Yet, to some, the older language carried a certain formality and gravitas that its successors lack. Such changes remind us that progress often involves trade-offs.

Looking forward: respect, redefined 

The Law Society’s D&Ictionary is not only about salutations. It reflects a broader movement within the profession to confront subtle forms of bias, not just in language, but in behaviour, recruitment, and culture. Concepts such as active bystandership encourage solicitors to challenge discriminatory or exclusionary practices when they see them, however small. In that light, the decision to remove Dear Sirs is emblematic of a wider awareness that unexamined habits, even linguistic ones, can perpetuate inequality. The aim is that inclusion and professionalism can and should coexist. 

Ultimately, this debate is not really about two words at the top of a letter. It is about what kind of profession we want to be. We should be aware of societal change and not cling to outdated practices, particularly those that reflect the gender imbalances of a bygone era. But reform must be managed in a way that retains our shared standards and sense of respect. 

The challenge, and opportunity, lies in ensuring that, as we modernise our language, we do not lose the civility and dignity that have long been its hallmark.