Signature stamp of Authority: Can a law firm claim to be signatory of a document?

The word “signature” has its origins in late Middle English, from the Medieval Latin “signatura” meaning “a sign.” And ultimately from the Latin verb “signare” meaning “to sign, mark.”

Commonly a “signature” refers to a person’s name or mark, often in a distinctive and individualized manner. It’s handwritten on a document to signify their agreement, acceptance, or acknowledgement.

“Signature” can also refer to a distinctive characteristic. It’s like a mark of authenticity, or a quality that identifies something or someone… Such as an artist’s “signature style” or a chef’s “signature dish.”

So how can a “rubber stamp” showing a script of the name of a law firm, be accepted as a “signature” by definition?

Technically, a rubber stamp showing the script of a law firm’s name doesn’t meet the traditional definition of a signature. It lacks the distinctive and individualised characteristics associated with a person’s handwritten signature.

However, within the context of the legal system*, the use of such stamps is acceptable as a proxy for a signature, especially when used by author-ised representatives of a legal entity like a law firm.

Just to clarify, for the uninitiated, “*the context of the legal system” is a euphemism for a secret club, a closed and self-serving industry.

Lawyers use obscure language (“sophistry”) and obfuscation to further their own interests and financial gain, highlights a common criticism of the legal profession.

Such legal language and procedures create barriers to access and understanding for those outside the profession. This reinforces the perception of an exclusive and self-interested “club.”

The term “learned friends,” traditionally used as a respectful address among lawyers. It also indicates the close-knit insular nature of the legal community.

Signature Stamp In Court

So why do Courts let law firms get away with signing affidavits and legal documents in the name of the firm?

Courts generally accept documents signed by law firms under the assumption that these firms are acting on behalf of their clients… And have the necessary authority to do so. The firms are bound by professional ethics and regulations, and their actions are subject to oversight by regulatory bodies. The use of a firm’s name is seen as a representation of its collective responsibility for the content of the document.

On the other hand, individuals are often required to have their signatures witnessed by a Justice of the Peace (JP) or another authorized person. This is required to verify the identity of the signatory. It’s also to confirm that they’ve signed the document willingly and under their own volition.

Such requirements places a greater burden on individuals, who must take additional steps to validate their signatures.

Yet, amazingly, law firms are not held to the same standard.

In what way is that a fair and equitable arrangement?

Some argue this practice is biased because it favours law firms. These firms have more resources and expertise at their disposal. It also assumes that law firms are inherently more trustworthy or reliable than individuals… We all know that may not always be the case.

In response to these concerns, some jurisdictions are moving towards more equal treatment of parties in legal proceedings. For instance, they may require law firms to provide additional verification for their signatures or encourage the use of digital signatures, which can be easily authenticated.

The rubber stamp is understood to signify the firm’s agreement or acknowledgement, even if it doesn’t meet the strict definition of a signature.

Signature Stamp Of Approval

This acceptance can be seen as a compromise between the need for efficiency in legal transactions and the requirement for personal accountability. It allows law firms to handle a high volume of paperwork while still providing some level of verification and responsibility for their actions.

Yet, in what way is a “Law Firm” placing a stamp on a document as a “signature” not a false claim?

After all, a “law firm” is a dead entity. It’s a “legal fiction”, that cannot talk, or smell or taste or touch.

So straight away, the lawyers are not being honest…. Is it because lawyers within the law firm want to hide behind anonymity?

And they are magically and mysteriously appointed by their “legal fiction dead entity clients” that also cannot talk, or smell or taste or touch.

In what way is the whole foundation of the legal system not dishonest from the get-go?

Why should we be “hood-winked into falling a for a charade that even a twelve year-old kid would question?

At its core, the concept of a law firm or other legal entities, like corporations, signing documents is an abstraction that has been widely accepted within our current legal and economic systems.

Perhaps the rationale behind allowing legal entities to sign documents is grounded in practicality and the need for efficient economic and legal transactions.

When a law firm or corporate entity signs a document, it signifies the collective will and responsibility of the individuals who make up that entity. The signatory represents the interests of the entity as a whole and is accountable for the actions taken on its behalf.

On the other hand, it obscures individual accountability and creates a sense of detachment from personal responsibility.

Complete Lies

There’s nothing philosophical about it – it’s a complete lie from the outset – created by lawyers.

The Courts are run by lawyers, the judges are appointed by lawyers – the laws are created by lawyers…

And these “loopholes” are created by lawyers to cover up the web of lies and deceit within the legal industry, who have the audacity to promote that they have morals and ethics!

Lawyers play a significant role in shaping the legal system, from drafting laws to interpreting them in courts. This concentration of power leads to a system that prioritises the interests of lawyers and legal entities over those of individuals and society at large.

Lawyers, who are well-versed in navigating these loopholes, use them to shield their clients from accountability or to gain an unfair advantage in legal proceedings.

Neither is the legal industry’s emphasis on self-regulation, through BAR associations and professional codes of conduct, sufficient to ensure ethical behaviour and prevent abuses of power.

Here’s a hint: The term “solicitor” shares etymological roots with the word “solicit,” which can mean to seek or ask for something.

The comparison between solicitors and prostitutes suggests that both professions involve selling services to clients, perhaps with an implication of moral compromise.

While the comparison might be seen as derogatory, it raises broader questions about the role of money and power in the legal system… and whether lawyers’ primary motivation is serving justice or their own financial interests.

The Role of a Signature Stamp

A signatory’s role is to represent their agreement with a document’s contents and to signify their responsibility for the obligations outlined within it. While it is clear that individuals can fulfill this role, the position of law firms in this context is less obvious.

A law firm is a corporate entity, comprised of various individuals, including partners, associates, and support staff. It operates under its own distinct identity and can enter into contracts and agreements in its own name. However, can a law firm be considered a signatory in the same way an individual can?

Stamp as a Signatory

One way a law firm might indicate its agreement with a document is through the use of a stamp. A stamp bearing the firm’s name could be seen as a symbolic representation of the firm’s agreement with the document’s contents.

Some argue a stamp can’t replace an individual’s signature, as it lacks the personal accountability inherent in a signature. Also a stamp can’t verify a law firm’s intent. Nor does it necessarily indicate that the firm has carefully reviewed and agreed to the document’s contents.

So how can a “law firm” claim to be the signatory of a document?

When a law firm signs a document, it’s usually not the firm as a whole that’s signing. Rather, a specific lawyer or representative of the firm is authorized to act on behalf of the firm and its clients.

Typically law firms have policies and procedures in place where only authorised representatives can sign documents on the firm’s behalf. This might mean a partner or senior lawyer reviewing and approving documents before they’re signed. Or having a designated signing officer responsible for reviewing and executing important documents.

Yet it seems lawyers are twisting the law… creating the illusion that the “law firm” is able to sign a legal document…

They issue documents “signed” by the “law firm” with no one at the firm claiming responsibility or accountability.

Anyone following the UK Post Office fiasco can see how this “legal system” really works.

Post Office witness says “I only did what lawyer told me to do”

Lawyer says “I only did what Post Office told me to do”

“Just-Is System”

Outsiders may observe how crooks hire lawyers to do their dirty work, preying on the ignorance of innocent victims… All under the umbrella of a “Justice (just-is) System” which clearly is an oxymoron.

The UK Post Office scandal shows how the legal system is manipulated and abused by those in positions of power. The cycle of blame-shifting between the Post Office and their lawyers undermines the integrity of the system as a whole.

This type of behaviour is precisely why many people feel disillusioned with the just-is system. A system that favours those with the resources to hire clever lawyers, finding loopholes and technicalities to evade responsibility.

Unfortunately, this often comes at the expense of innocent victims who may lack the knowledge or resources to defend themselves.

A beautifully constructed abuse of justice, honesty, and fairness… Which is what Jesus warns when he says “Woe to You, Lawyers!”

He knew about the potential dangers of relying too heavily on a system that’s easily manipulated by power and influence.

Remember, all commerce is contract.

Contracts are agreements between two or more parties that create mutual obligations and rights. For a contract to be valid, there must be mutual agreement or consent between the parties involved. This is often signified by signatures or other forms of acceptance.

This principle of mutual agreement is crucial for ensuring fairness and preventing one party from imposing their will on another.

It’s the reason why consumer protection laws, for example, often require clear disclosure of terms and conditions.

And why contracts signed under duress or misrepresentation can be voided.

Signature Under Duress?

Duress occurs when one party coerces another party to enter into a contract against their will… Usually by using threats or other forms of pressure. The key factor here is that the coerced party did not voluntarily enter the contract. For example, if someone threatens physical harm unless you sign a contract, that’s duress.

When duress is proven, the contract can be voided or set aside because it violates the principle of mutual agreement. The coerced party can choose not to perform their contractual obligations. They may be able to recover any losses they suffered.

Misrepresentation occurs when one party makes a false statement that induces another party to enter into a contract. The false statement can be about a fact. Or about an intention to do something in the future. It may be about an opinion given by someone who claims to be an expert.

In the event of misrepresentation, the misled party may choose to void the contract, provided that the misrepresentation was material. In other words, it would have affected their decision to enter the contract, and they relied on it. The misled party can also claim damages for any loss suffered as a result of the misrepresentation.

In both cases, voiding the contract serves as a remedy and a deterrent against unfair practices. And helps to ensure that contracts reflect genuine agreement and understanding between parties.

This principle highlights the importance of ensuring that the way law firms sign documents genuinely reflects their agreement and commitment to the terms… Rather than just being a procedural formality.