Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
Thanks for the info:
It is clear from section 16.5 that this signature doesn't qualify as a digital signature under California law. There are five requirements, all of which have to met, and the jpeg does not seem to pass any of the requirements.
The use of a digital signature shall have the same force
and effect as the use of a manual signature if and only if it
embodies all of the following attributes:
(1) It is unique to the person using it.
(2) It is capable of verification.
(3) It is under the sole control of the person using it.
(4) It is linked to data in such a manner that if the data are
changed, the digital signature is invalidated.
(5) It conforms to regulations adopted by the Secretary of State.
I talk to a retired judge today and he told me to contact the state bar. So that is what I am going to do.
But it is clear, under the law, the pleading was not signed by an attorney.
And I am not paying an attorney to do anything, I do have a license to practice in California and I intend to use it.
|
Not my area, but does it have to qualify as a digital signature? If the attorney authorized it to be "signed" in this way, what is your beef? How is it different from having his secretary sign his name for him (which happens all the time)? What good does contacting the state bar do? How are they going to affect your case one way or the other?
The thing at always frustrates me when I am involved in "actual" litigation (most of what I do is quasi-litigation sort of stuff that doesn't involve a court or arbitral panel), is the petty bullshit people pull of things that shouldn't be controversial. As if it is all one big game of gotcha, and they can make up for the complete failute to produce any emails as long as they show that you refused to respond (after objecting) to the same interrogatories that you sent them.
