Rise of the Machines: Electronic Signatures and Paperless Closings

December 2016

Once upon a time, not so long ago, attorneys and their clients typically closed transactions by gathering in conference rooms to eat turkey sandwiches, hash out final deal terms, and sign multiple copies of closing documents neatly arranged in manila folders. While turkey sandwiches remain popular, the in-person closing, and the exchange of original, signed documents has become increasingly rare. Electronic signatures have been legally recognized for several years, but their widespread use – often to the complete exclusion of ink signatures – has only more recently become common practice.

The Law of Electronic Signatures

The federal Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-SIGN) was enacted in 2000. Forty-seven states have also adopted statutes that are based on the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA), and the other three have adopted similar laws. The key elements of E-SIGN and UETA are that:

  • A record or signature may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form;
  • A contract may not be denied legal effect solely because an electronic record was used in its formation;
  • If a law requires a record to be in writing, an electronic record satisfies the law;
  • If a law requires a signature, an electronic signature satisfies the law; and
  • In a proceeding, evidence of a record or signature may not be excluded solely because it is in electronic form.

Together, these provisions are intended to create equivalency between electronic and manual signatures. Certain exceptions apply, including under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) (although in many cases, the UCC defers to other state law) and for wills and trusts.

The definition of an electronic signature under E-SIGN and UETA is deliberately broad, and goes far beyond the garden-variety electronic signature consisting of a manually signed page in PDF format transmitted by email. The definition includes sounds, symbols, processes, and other manifestations of intent (such as click-through screens, check-the-box web pages, the entry of unique passwords or personal identification numbers, retinal scanners, or fingerprints). Even a simple email transmission with no attachment can constitute an electronic signature under some circumstances.

Practical Issues Relating to Electronic Signatures

The use and acceptance of electronic signatures is not mandatory. Some parties (including many banks) still insist on receiving original signed documents before closing. Generally, electronic signatures will be binding only when the parties have agreed to their use, although courts will consider context course of dealing when determining the intent of the parties discussions. Accordingly, parties wishing to enter into binding agreements electronically should make their intent to do so clear by adding language to that effect to their contracts. On the other hand, a party who does not wish to be bound by an electronic signature should add appropriate disclaimers to emails or other transmissions to reduce the risk of inadvertently entering into a contract.

General principles of contract law and evidence still apply in the electronic context, and many of the issues are the same whether dealing with electronic or manual signatures. Assent can be indicated by putting pen to paper or by clicking, "Send." The authenticity and origin of an electronic signature can be challenged (perhaps more easily than a signature that is manually applied in a conference room full of witnesses), but document forgery is not precluded by manual signatures. Electronic files can be deleted or corrupted, but paper documents are also subject to mishandling, loss, or damage.

The speed and convenience of conducting business using electronic signatures, the ease of electronic document storage, and the general trends toward improved technology and greater reliance on technology all point to greater reliance on electronic signatures in the future.

Firm Highlights
News

Lindsay S. C. Brinton and Meghan S. Largent Negotiate $1.4 Million Settlement for Landowners along Legacy Trail

More
News

David W. Sweeney Named to Missouri’s POWER List for Lawyer-Lobbyists by Missouri Lawyers Media

More
Client Alert

New York State Regulator Discourages Ransomware Payments and Publishes New Cyber Insurance Risk Framework

More
News

Lewis Rice Wins Significant Victory for Atlanta Landowners Impacted by the Belt Line Rail-Trail

More
News

Brian P. Pezza Discusses Vaccination Considerations for Employees in Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) Article

More
News

Paul R. Himmelstein Joins Lewis Rice Kansas City Office

More
Diversity & Inclusion

Fatima G. Khan Elected President of South Asian Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis

More
News

Lewis Rice Names Brian J. Figueroa Member of the Firm

More
Client Alert

Supreme Court Decision Provides Good News for Creditors

More
News

Jeremy P. Brummond’s Article on Waivers of Consequential Damages is Published in Construction Executive

More
News

David W. Sweeney Interviewed in Realtime REALTOR® Podcast on Changes to Elections in the City of St. Louis

More
Diversity & Inclusion

Jerina D. Phillips Selected for Leadership Council on Legal Diversity’s (LCLD’s) 2021 Pathfinder Program

More
Diversity & Inclusion

Apollo Carey Selected for Leadership Council on Legal Diversity’s (LCLD’s) 2021 Fellows Program

More
Client Alert

Have You Done Your Annual CCPA Housekeeping?

More
News

Jerina D. Phillips Offers COVID-19 Vaccination Advice for Employers in St. Louis Magazine Article

More
Client Alert

Virginia Passes Sweeping Data Privacy Legislation Similar to CCPA and GDPR

More
News

Kansas City Office of Lewis Rice Names New Member

More
Client Alert

City of St. Louis 2021 Primary Municipal Election: Meet the Candidates

More
Client Alert

Employers, Start Planning Now – Get Ahead with the Upcoming H-1B Cap Season

More