Posted by Ernest__CT on 6/14/08 2:12pm
Msg #251337

Copy certification: It bears repeating.

If your state does not permit Notaries Public to certify copies as "True and Correct", you still can serve your customer _legally_. The Connecticut Notary Public Manual specifies the procedure, and your state's book may also.

When your customer comes to you with the original and the copy (or you make a copy with your customer), have your customer swear the oath for "Copy Certification by Document Custodian" and sign the jurat. You then notarize your customer's signature as usual. You are following your state's law to the letter.

If you cannot find a "Copy Certification by Document Custodian" form (there are lots on the Net), please PM or email me and I'll send you mine in Microsoft Word format.

Reply by davidK/CA on 6/14/08 2:53pm
Msg #251344

Providing a Copy Certification form to someone and then notarizing their signature could be considered UPL in California. It's a very thin line to cross.

Reply by Korey Humphreys on 6/14/08 3:16pm
Msg #251348

Speaking of UPL, how would you define this section....

found in Executive Order 455 (04-04) section 9(b): "[t]his section does not preclude a notary public who is duly qualified, trained, or experienced in a particular industry or professional field from selecting, drafting, completing, or advising on a document or certificate related to a matter within that industry or field."

So if I'm trained in the legal field, and work as a paralegal, I can select, draft, complete or advise a client on a document or certificate related to a matter within the legal field... right?
[I'm surrpised this clause was actually put into the Executive Order.]

Reply by davidK/CA on 6/14/08 3:26pm
Msg #251351

Re: Speaking of UPL, how would you define this section....

It doesn't apply to CA notaries. The original question came from CA.

That's why I don't think there will be a nationwide standard set of notarial laws for years to come, maybe never, although maybe the US Supreme Count will write the law themselves.

Reply by Charles_Ca on 6/14/08 8:44pm
Msg #251400

The Los Angeles District Attorneys directions to ADAs is

a god review of UPL concepts. You can finnd it at:

http://da.co.la.ca.us/pdf/UPLpublic.pdf

Reply by Gerry_VT on 6/14/08 5:55pm
Msg #251363

Re: Speaking of UPL, how would you define this section....

I think a key term is "industry or professional field". Some fields that I think would certainly qualify would be land surveyor, engineer, architect, physician, and accountant. Some others that might qualify would be agents for authors, athletes, and actors. Since paralegals work under the direction of lawyers, that would not qualify as a separate field.

Even though the executitve order mentioned by Korey only applies to Massachusetts, I think the same reasoning would apply in quite a few other states; a professional could advise a client to complete a form that pertains to that profession, or help him complete it, even though the form needs to be notarized.

Reply by Korey Humphreys on 6/14/08 6:23pm
Msg #251370

Re: Speaking of UPL, how would you define this section....

*Since paralegals work under the direction of lawyers, that would not qualify as a separate field.*

Not all paralegals work under an attorney. Many work independently and offer legal support services directly to the public [where allowed].

Reply by Dave_CA on 6/15/08 8:56am
Msg #251427

I do not believe that providing this form and properly notarizing the persons signature is UPL in California.
Here is a quote from the LA District Attorney's guide as referenced by Charles.

c. Examples of Activities Which Are Not the Practice of Law
"• The acts of a “scrivener” filling in the blanks on a form at the direction of a client
(People v. Landlords Professional Services (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1599, 1608 (defendants who
"made forms available for the client's use and filed and served those forms as directed by the
client” did not practice law); Mickel v. Murphy (1957) 147 Cal.App.2d 718; People v. Sipper
(1943) 61 Cal.App.2d Supp. 844)."

In this case they went even further than just providing the form...