The Borrowed Signature
A senior colleague asks you to sign off on a client risk assessment he prepared, because he is leaving early for a family event. He assures you the content is complete and that he has already discussed it with the client. You have not read the document, have not met the client, and your professional body's code requires that any practitioner who signs a document must have the competence and knowledge to stand behind it. The deadline for submission is in two hours. The client is a 68-year-old with a recent fall and two prescription medications that interact. Your colleague has 15 years of experience; you have three. He says he would do the same for you.
1. What should you do, and why?
Read the worked answer
You should decline to sign until you have read the assessment and satisfied yourself of its accuracy. The core principle is accountability: a signature asserts personal professional judgement, not a rubber stamp. Three years of experience is not the issue - competence to review this specific document is.\n\nA defensible path: (1) ask your colleague to walk you through the assessment now, or (2) read it yourself against the source records, checking the medication interaction and fall history, and (3) only sign if you can explain and defend every conclusion. If time does not permit, the honest option is to submit unsigned with a note that review is pending, or request a short extension.\n\nReciprocity pressure ("I'd do the same for you") is not an ethical argument. Signing blind exposes the client to harm from an unreviewed interaction and exposes you to a fraud-adjacent conduct finding.
2. The colleague becomes irritated and says you are questioning his integrity. How do you respond professionally?
Read the worked answer
Separate the person from the process. A useful framing: "I'm not doubting your work - I'm protecting both of us. If anything in this document is challenged later, the signature has to mean I actually reviewed it."\n\nThen offer a concrete accommodation: propose the walkthrough, offer to take on the submission logistics, or suggest he flag the document as co-reviewed once you have read it. This converts an apparent accusation into a shared problem.\n\nIf he continues to pressure you, document the exchange factually and, if needed, raise it with a supervisor as a workflow issue rather than a misconduct allegation. Escalation should be proportionate: the goal is a correct document, not a complaint against a colleague.