We've found that a notary's level of concern over the actual contents of a document can range from noticing a couple of spaces in the document that look like they should be filled in, up to questioning the document's contents as being a "bad" deal for the signer. We have had to rein-in some members who, in their concern, were giving their clients what amounted to legal advice about the contents of the document.

We also know that some clients will go to a notary thinking that a notarial act will in some way validate the contents of the document that they have brought with them, especially if they have hand-written the document themselves.

When the notary is handed a document for the purpose of performing an acknowledgment or oath/affirmation notarial act over it, his interest in the contents of the document is limited. His primary concern is to determine if the document is eligible for a notarial act. There are a few criteria that must be met, and if they are not, the notarial act cannot be performed.

The criteria that the document must satisfy are physical in nature. For example, it must display a proper date; it must be "complete;" it must display notarial language that guides the notary to perform the correct notarial act. None of these considerations touch on the contents or effect of the document. Document contents and effect are outside the scope of the notary's involvement in the transaction, which is limited strictly to document execution - the brief ceremony in which the signer's oath or acknowledgment will result in a document being put into effect.

It is the sole responsibility of the signer to understand the contents of and the effect of signing the document when the notarial act is an acknowledgment. The notary's responsibility is limited to determining that the signer appears to do so, and that the document is eligible for the notarial act as described above.

If the notarial act is an oath or affirmation, the signer is accountable for the contents of the document then, too. Before the notary, the signer swears or affirms that the contents of the document are true. If that turns out not to be the case, then the signer/oath taker is the one who has perpetrated a fraud—not the notary. This does not mean that the notary should proceed with a notarial act against his suspicions that the transaction might be fraudulent. This assessment, however, is subjective on the notary's part—there are no black-and-white guidelines since the notary is not authorized to analyze and pass judgment on the document's contents. You can, however, watch for certain warning signs:

• There is another person present who has nothing to do with the transaction and seems to have power over the document signer.
• The document signer appears to be unusually nervous.
• The document signer and/or other person wants the notary to rush the performance of his notarial act(s).
• The person who is present before the notary does not closely resemble the picture on his ID card and/or the physical description on the ID card does not match the signer.
• The signer has no other form of identification to back up a suspicious ID card.

The notary must not comment on the contents of the document, nor should he attempt to explain any parts of the document to the signer. The purpose of the notary is to be a disinterested third party who has no connection to the document at hand. If the notary has reason to believe that the document or the transaction is in some way fraudulent, all the notary can do is decline to perform the notarial act.