Ethics: Misuse of notary seal can result in discipline

By Thomas P. McGarry and Thomas P. Sukowicz
Hinshaw & Culbertson

Attorneys have been disciplined for conduct that arises out of their representation of clients, as well as for conduct that does not. Lawyers have been disciplined for conduct involving the misuse of notary seals in both contexts. In fact, one attorney was disciplined twice for such conduct, once when acting as a lawyer and the other when he was not.

In In re Maples, 99 CH 80, M.R. 18253 (2002), an attorney represented sellers of real property held in trust by LaSalle Bank National Association.

In relation to the sale, the attorney certified the signatures of his clients by using the notary seal and forging the name of the notary on a Direction to Convey and/or a Power of Attorney.

He also falsely certified an inaccurate HUD Settlement Statement, made false statements in motions, and in an affidavit, forged his client’s name to a false affidavit and neglected two personal injury cases.

For this conduct, he was suspended for two years, with the suspension stayed after the first year by probation.

That same attorney was the subject of a second disciplinary proceeding, In re Maples, 06 CH 13, M.R. 21210 (2006).

In that matter, as a loan processor for a mortgage company, he forged the signature of a bank employee on a subordination agreement, and then forged the signature of a notary and affixed the notary stamp of that notary on her forged signature. He also forged a signature on a document entitled Evidence of Insurance in an unrelated matter. Based on this conduct and his prior discipline, he was disbarred on consent.

The above cases illustrate the general pattern that false notarization is typically not the sole charge in a disciplinary action, but just one of several charges of misconduct.

When the attorney is a notary himself or herself and misuses the office of notary, one hearing panel noted that such conduct violates the duties of a notary under 5 ILCS 312/6-102 (2002).

In that case, In re Bulger, 02 CH 40, M.R. 19550 (2004), the attorney was suspended for five months for appealing from an order that was not final or appealable, preparing and notarizing a document that purported to have been signed by his clients but was actually a copy of a page, which they had signed, that was attached to an earlier pleading. He also subsequently provided false information to the court and to the ARDC.

Sometimes, false notarization can lead to further acts of misconduct that can eventually have disastrous consequences for the attorney.

In In re Harris, 98 CH 127, M.R. 16027 (1999), an attorney used his wife’s notary seal and forged her signature to verify a motion for continuance.

He also forged his co-counsel’s signature on a motion for continuance and lied at the contempt hearing, stating that he did not know who had signed the motion.

He was indicted for perjury and pleaded guilty for 24 months probation, 150 hours community service, and a $500 fine. He was suspended from the practice of law for nine months.

In In re Niew, 98 CH 113, M.R. 17491 (2001), an attorney notarized signatures purporting to be those of her clients on pleadings. She also notarized an affidavit attached to a will, even though she knew that statements in the affidavit were false, and made false statements to a client and to the ARDC concerning each matter. She had been previously censured for making false statements. She was suspended for nine months.

Attorneys can also be disciplined when their employees use false notarizations at their direction.

The attorney in In re Reynolds, 32 Ill. 2d 331, 203 N.E.2d 429 (1965), filed bankruptcy petitions accompanied by fraudulent affidavits in nine separate matters. The affidavits contained false statements and bore a purported signature of the attorney, affixed to the affidavits by his secretary with his authorization, who then notarized the purported signatures.

The court found that the false statements were intended to influence the court in allowing Reynolds to file the petitions without prepayment of the filing fee. He was suspended for six months.

In In re Ritacca, 02 CH 79, M.R. 19254 (2004), an attorney was placed on probation for having failed to supervise his secretary.

The attorney represented clients in two civil forfeiture matters.

In both of those matters, the secretary, signed the names of the clients to their respective ”Claim of Interest to the Civil Forfeiture.”

She then notarized the signatures with a notary stamp belonging to another employee without that employee’s knowledge or consent, and caused the claims to be filed with the court.

Cutting corners with notary seals has ethical implications.

Take whatever time is needed and obtain a genuinely notarized signature.