Internet Newsletter for Lawyers |
|---|
i) The most widely used form of electronic signature is the act of typing your name into
a document, as illustrated by the case of Hall v Cognos Ltd (Hull Industrial Tribunal
1803325/97). Cognos employed Mr Hall as a sales executive, and he was reimbursed
for his expenses in accordance with the relevant policy, that stated all expenses over
six months old would not be paid. He did not submit a claim on time. Mr Hall
subsequently exchanged a number of e-mails between Keith Schroeder (his line
manager) and Sarah McGoun from personnel, when in one response he eventually
asked if the late submission was “OK with you?” and his line manager said, “Yes, it is
OK.” The e-mails were signed “Sarah” and “Keith” respectively.
He inflated the claim, and he was dismissed without payment. The contract of
employment stated that amendments or variations had to be in writing and signed by
the parties to be effective. At issue was whether the exchange of e-mails between Mr
Hall and his line manager varied the contract. It was determined that the printed version
of the e-mail was in writing and signed, and constituted a variation of the contract,
although the printed version was merely a copy of the original version in electronic
format. This decision demonstrates that a signature typed into an electronic document
is acceptable as a form of electronic signature. While this decision cannot be
considered to be of any significance in terms of legal precedent, nevertheless it
demonstrates that a signature typed into an electronic document is acceptable as a
form of electronic signature. The line manager intended Mr Hall to act upon the
exchange of e-mails, and Mr Hall relied upon the assurance made by the line manager.
The inclusion of an employee from the personnel department in the negotiations served
to reinforce the authority of the line manager to offer the variation of the contract of
employment.
ii) The second most popular form of electronic signature is when a person clicks the ‘I
accept’ icon to confirm that they wish to enter a contract when buying goods or services
electronically. The signing party demonstrates their intention to enter the contract by
clicking the icon. The Law Commission in paragraph 3.37 of their paper “Electronic
Commerce: Formal Requirements in Commercial Transactions Advice from the Law
Commission” December 2001, suggested that this form of signature is the technological
equivalent of a manuscript signature using a cross, which must be right. This analysis
is also in keeping with the decisions made by judges over the past two hundred years
regarding the form that a manuscript signature may take. In English law, the validity of
the signature depends on the function it performs, not necessarily the form a signature
takes. Even if the act of clicking on an icon to order goods or services is deemed to be
less secure than that provided by a manuscript signature, it does not follow that the
reliability of the signature will affect its validity.
iii) The use of a biodynamic version of a manuscript signature, which uses a special pen
and pad to measure and record the actions of the person as they sign. This creates a
digital version of the manuscript signature. The file can then be attached to documents
in electronic format.
iv) The scanned manuscript signature, used to send out marketing letters. The
manuscript signature is scanned and transformed into digital format, which can then be
attached to an electronic document.
v) The digital signature. A very simple explanation as to how it works, is as follows: a
digital signature can comprise three elements, a key pair (a private key and a public
key) and a certificate, which is usually issued by a third party such as a certification
authority. When an electronic message is signed with a digital signature, the private key
is used to associate a value with the message using an algorithm. The computer
undertakes this task. The value, the message and a certificate, linking the key to the
named person or entity, is then sent to the recipient. The recipient uses the public key
to check the value is correct by ‘unlocking’ the value created by the algorithm. A
computer undertakes the entire operation. The only action required of the human being
(in theory) is to cause the computer to associate the digital signature to the message.
The reader will readily note the problem that affects every form of electronic signature:
the recipient does not know whether the signature was affixed to the e-mail or
document by the person whose signature it purports to be. This is the central
conundrum of all forms of electronic signature, even the digital signature.
Electronic signatures and e-conveyancing
Any form of electronic signature can be valid, but it does not mean that reliance on a
particular type is necessarily prudent. As a result, it seems likely that the digital
signature will be the form of electronic signature upon which e-conveyancing will be
based. If this is the case, then a decision needs to be made as to whether to adopt one
of two models:
i) A public key infrastructure (PKI), a term used to describe the various players that
provide digital signatures. This comprises a registration authority, that register the user;
a key generating authority that generates the cryptographic key pair (private and public
keys), and a certificate authority, that will provide a certificate, linking the keys with the
identity of the user. If the Land Registry adopts this approach, the law firm will be
required to buy a key pair and a certificate from a certification authority (usually
annually). The certificate acts to bind their identity to their key, for the benefit of the
recipient.
ii) A closed community, where each law firm has a shared key with the Land Registry,
which the Land Registry (or a third party on behalf of the Land Registry) issues a key
pair and certificate to the law firm. When the law firm communicates with the Land
Registry electronically, the Land Registry will accept the instructions from the law firm
when the digital signature is used.
The Land Registry is keen to discuss the issues relating to this matter, and have taken
numerous steps to engage the legal community in the discussion. Whichever model is
used by the Land Registry, law firms will have to invest in much higher levels of security
than they have hitherto employed, and they will also have to manage, store and retain
the keys for significant periods of time. In addition, they will also need to buy additional
insurance to cover the risks of unauthorized use of their digital signatures.
Electronic billing for law firms
It would be interesting to know how many firms are using technology to send out bills
to clients. Many readers will be familiar with the well-known case of Goodman v J Eban
Ltd [1954] 1 QB 550, in which it was correctly decided that a stamp could act to signify
a solicitor’s signature on a bill. As Leigh Ellis demonstrates in his ‘Practice Note’ (e-Signature Law Journal, Volume 1 Number 2 91 – 92), signing a bill electronically is now
a sound and perfectly acceptable use of technology. For example, Kaltons use the
technology provided by Adobe Acrobat to send out bills to clients. A bill is exported from
the time recording database into Adobe Acrobat pdf, and a partner uses the digital
signature facility to sign the bill with a digital signature. This is not the only type of
technology that is capable of performing the same function, but it is a good use of the
Adobe Acrobat software.
Of greater interest to lawyers is how to provide for the confidentiality of the contents of
an e-mail or documents attached to an e-mail. Cryptographic products are rather too
complex for most organizations, and lawyers, because of their cost and complexity,
have not bought many of the products that have been brought to market. A present, a
law firm or barrister will either offer a client the option of having all correspondence
encrypted when it is sent electronically, or may simply state that they do not provide for
the encryption of documents sent electronically. Invariably, the vast majority of clients
are not in a position to support encryption themselves, and so decline any offer to
encrypt in any event. However, lawyers might consider re-assessing their position with
respect to providing for the confidentiality of documents sent electronically by such
products as that sold by Argelcom Limited (see www.argelcom.com) and by Security
and Standards (www.secstan.co.uk).
In addition, solicitors and barrister specializing in criminal matters are encouraged to
take up the offer of the CJIT (Criminal Justice Information Technology) secure e-mail
system (see www.cjit.gov.uk).
Two points appear to stand clear in the use of networked communications by lawyers.
Firstly, the voluntary use of complex digital signatures has not taken off, and probably
never will do without some form of compulsion.
Secondly, lawyers should reconsider the use of cryptography to provide for the
confidentiality of the documents they send to clients. The technology is reaching
maturity, in that some products are now very easy to use.
Stephen Mason is a barrister with an interest in authentication and identity as it affects
our use of information technology. He is the author of Electronic Signatures in Law
(LexisNexis Butterworths, 2003), Networked communications and compliance with the
law (xpl publications, 5th edn, 2005) and the editor of the e-Signature Law Journal.
Email stephenmason@stephenmason.co.uk.
Back to Contents.
Lawyers and Electronic Signatures
This article outlines the forms that an electronic signature can take, considers the most
popular form of electronic signature that is used by lawyers, and offers some thoughts
on the future use of electronic signatures in practice.
by Stephen MasonThe forms of an electronic signature
Most of us use electronic signatures every day. In the same way as manuscript
signatures function to prove the intent of the signing party, so electronic signatures
function to authenticate the sender. Electronic signatures affect lawyers just as much
as they apply to clients. Below are the different types of electronic signature that are in
use today:The role of electronic signatures in legal practice
It has almost become the norm for both solicitors and barristers to communicate
between each other and between themselves and clients by way of e-mail. This has
increased the speed at which a client is kept up-to-date. Solicitors send agreements to
clients electronically, altering the document until the client is satisfied with the finished
product. Barristers send an opinion or advice as an attachment to an e-mail, just as they
might add supplementary questions by e-mail to instructing solicitors, who will then
forward the e-mail on to the client. In every instance, the signature used by every party
in the process is the name typed at the end of the e-mail.Current technology
The digital signature technology, the subject of so much discussion during the turn of
the century, has failed to take off because of its complexity, cost and the additional
burden of maintaining the keys from year to year. In addition, it does not serve any
additional function than a name typed in an e-mail or the click of the ‘I accept’ icon.
Millions of contracts are entered every day by way of the ‘I accept’ icon or the typed
signature, and there are very few cases in which either of these forms of electronic
signature are challenged. The issue for the replying party is to ensure they have the
ability to prove the use of the signature to a sufficient degree that they can rely on it.Conclusion
The majority of lawyers use electronic signatures in their daily business, and the courts
are now encouraging the use of e-mail, as demonstrated by a new ‘E-mail Protocol’ that
sets out how parties may communicate by e-mail on a number of matters with the
Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice at the Royal Courts of Justice. It applies
with effect from 18 April 2005. The types of documents which can be sent by e-mail are
skeleton arguments, chronologies, reading lists, lists of issues, lists of authorities and
lists of the persons involved in the facts of the case sent in advance of a hearing.