The Jurat for a Signer Who Wasn't There
Attorney Priya emails notary Grant a signed affidavit and asks him to 'just attach a jurat and drop it at my office - I'll get it signed and sworn later, I just need the certificate today for a filing deadline.' The affidavit already bears the affiant's signature. Grant has never met the affiant and the affiant is out of state. Grant knows Priya well and wants to help with the deadline. He completes a jurat certificate, fills in the current date, signs and stamps it, and delivers it. The filing is accepted. Three weeks later the affiant's opposing counsel subpoenas Grant for testimony about when the oath was administered.
1. Explain why Grant could not lawfully complete the jurat, comparing what a jurat certifies with what an acknowledgment certifies.
Read the worked answer
A jurat certifies that the signer personally appeared before the notary, swore or affirmed the truth of the contents, and signed in the notary's presence (or acknowledged the signature as theirs under oath). Every element requires the affiant to be physically before Grant at the moment of the act.
None of that happened. The affidavit arrived already signed, the affiant was in another state, and no oath was ever administered. Grant certified facts that are false.
Contrast an acknowledgment, which certifies the signer appeared, was identified, and acknowledged executing the document voluntarily. It also requires personal appearance - so even if Priya had asked for an acknowledgment instead, Grant could not supply it for an absent signer.
There is no certificate form that can be truthfully completed without the signer present. The deadline pressure is irrelevant; the notary cannot certify a future or hypothetical event.
2. The filing succeeded and no one was harmed. Does that change the analysis of Grant's conduct?
Read the worked answer
No. Notarial liability attaches to the false certification, not to whether the filing was later rejected or a dispute materialized. Grant's certificate states, in substance, that the affiant appeared and was sworn - statements he knew to be untrue when he made them.
When Grant is subpoenaed, he will be asked directly whether the affiant appeared before him and whether he administered an oath. His honest answer - no - exposes the certificate as false. His prior relationship with Priya and the fact that the filing was accepted are not defenses; they are context that may make the misconduct look more deliberate, because he acted to accommodate a known colleague rather than through confusion.
A notary who signs a false certificate has committed a serious violation regardless of downstream outcome.
3. What should Grant have told Priya, and what should he do now that the certificate is in a court file?
Read the worked answer
At the time: He should have declined plainly - he cannot execute a jurat for someone he has not met, and the deadline does not create an exception. He could offer lawful alternatives: have the affiant appear before a notary in her own state (a jurat from that notary is fully valid), or, if she can appear before Grant, administer the oath and complete the jurat then. The certificate follows the act; the act cannot be manufactured to fit a deadline.
Now: Grant must not quietly let the false certificate stand. He should decline to repeat or defend the false statement, and he should seek advice about correcting the record - because a false jurat in a court file is a matter the court and the commissioning authority both have reason to know about. He should not alter the existing certificate to make it look proper; that compounds the problem.