Arizona Supreme Court has legalized e-signatures

Technology is gearing court proceedings in the United States; attorneys may now electronically submit motions and briefs and review files; electronic evidence is gaining preponderance during discovery; and now, judgments may be signed electronically. In an original 2007 case, the Supreme Court of Arizona held that judgments may be signed electronically in Arizona. Even though this is not an unforeseen decision for this era, it raises concerns that perhaps the same technology will address. Following, there is information on how the Arizona Supreme Court reached this decision.

Validity of electronic signatures in private commercial dealings is a well settled principle where only the authentication method becomes the notch issue. Indeed the US Commercial Code, which establishes the basic rules for all types of commercial dealings, defines the term 'signed' as "any symbol executed or adopted by a party with present intention to authenticate a writing." UCC Art. 1-201(39). Any symbol could be a signature; for example, a manual signature, a stamp, the signing party's name initials, etc. Yet, not much has been heard about judgments and court orders being signed electronically.

In a first impression case that will soon be followed by most US jurisdictions, the Arizona Supreme Court held that "[N]othing prohibited judgments from being signed electronically." The phrase "signed by a judge" as used in Ariz. R. Civ. P. 58(a) encompassed more than manual signatures. The issue presented was whether a 'typed signature' of a judge in an electronically filed judgment complies with the requirement that judgments be 'signed' as established by Ariz. R. Civ. P. Rule 58(a).

Plaintiff's civil claims against defendant were dismissed with prejudice based on forum selection clause. Almost one year after, plaintiff reasserted its claims by filing an amended complaint against defendant. Again, the court dismissed plaintiff's claims on the same grounds. In the signature line, both judgments had the typed name of the judge and below the line the judge's title: 'Superior Court Judge' appeared. Plaintiff appealed the second judgment. The court of appeals held that none of the two judgments was final because neither judgment was 'manually signed.' The court of appeals remanded the case to the superior court so the judge could manually sign both judgments, and then reinstate the appeal. Afterward, defendant filed a Petition for Special Action before the Arizona Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction over this Special Action Petition because it deemed this was a matter of first impression, was of state-wide significance, and was strictly a matter of law. Ariz. R. Civ. P. Rule 58(a) requires that "all judgments shall be in writing and signed by a judge." Further, judgments must be in writing and filed with the clerk of the court to be final. Since the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure do not define the phrase 'signed by a judge,' the Supreme Court looked at the usual, ordinary meaning of the word 'signed.' For instance, it quoted the Black's Law Dictionary definition of the term 'sign:' "[t]o attach a name or cause it to be attached to a writing by any of the known methods of impressing a name on paper;" also, the Supreme Court reviewed its previous rulings stating that 'signed' is not limited to manual, handwritten signatures, and other state cases interpreting the term 'signed.' Finally, the Supreme Court said that focus is to be placed on the intent of the judge.

Then, the Supreme Court concluded that the phrase 'to be signed by judge' can include more than manual signatures and that nothing in the Civil Rules of Procedure prohibits judgments to be signed electronically. Regarding the 'to be signed by judge' requirement, the court held that the name of the judge has to be affixed to the writing in such a way that evidences an 'intention of authentication.' Thus in this case, by affixing the name of the judge in the signature line the judge clearly evidenced its intention to authenticate the two judgments.

As this decision shows, court validate the use of technological means in court proceedings by borrowing private commercial principles like the 'intention' of the parties and signature authentication methods. Undoubtedly, this is a great advance in the judicial system and one that we cannot hold any longer. Yet, electronic signatures in multimillion-dollar judgments and criminal penalties raise some concerns. It is here where proper authentication methods used by the court become a crucial demand from us, the citizens, and an aim for the court system.