Can a Florida county accept a notarized photocopy of a signed-and-sealed engineering or architecture document for permit review, instead of the original?

Plain-English summary

Leon County saw a pattern in its building-permit applications: applicants were sometimes submitting photocopies of signed-and-sealed engineering or architectural drawings rather than the originals, with a notary's stamp on top attesting either that the copy was a "true and correct" copy of the original, or that the signature and seal on the original "complied with State law." The county asked Senior Assistant Attorney General Teresa L. Mussetto whether it could treat such notarized photocopies as the legal and functional equivalent of the originals.

The AG's answer was no, on two distinct grounds.

First, on the narrow notary point: section 117.05 lets a Florida notary supervise the making of a photocopy and attest to its trueness, with limits (the document cannot be a vital record or, in most cases, a public record). So the basic act of attesting to a copy's trueness is something a notary may do. But a notary may not opine on the legal sufficiency of the signature and seal on the original. That kind of legal opinion is a legal activity reserved to lawyers under The Fla. Bar v. Fuentes. So a notary's purported attestation that the original "complies with State law" adds nothing legally.

Second, on the substance: even a true-and-correct notarized copy is not the legal equivalent of the original signed and sealed engineering or architectural drawing. The licensing rules for engineers (Fla. Admin. Code R. 61G15-23.004(3)(c)3., 61G15-23.005(4)(c)3.) state that "[p]rinted copies of this document are not considered signed and sealed." The architectural rules (Fla. Admin. Code R. 61G1-16.005(1)(a)) say "[a] scanned image of an original signature shall not be used in lieu of a digital or electronic signature." Sections 471.025(1) and 481.221(2) require all final professional documents filed for public record to be "signed by the licensee, dated, and sealed."

The classic interpretive maxim from Alsop v. Pierce applies: "When the controlling law directs how a thing shall be done that is, in effect, a prohibition against its being done in any other way." The Legislature and licensing boards have specified the form of authenticity (original signature, original seal, or properly applied digital/electronic signature). A notarized photocopy is not on that list. Counties cannot accept what the licensing rules expressly exclude.

The opinion also makes a public-records observation: section 119.011(12) defines public records expansively. When the county receives a final professional document for permit review, that document becomes a county public record subject to retention and access rules. A notarized photocopy that lacks the statutory indicia of authenticity is not the kind of document section 471.025 or 481.221 contemplates the county receiving and retaining.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2019. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Background and statutory framework

Florida regulates the engineering and architecture professions in chapters 471 and 481 of the statutes. The Florida Engineers Management Corporation and the Board of Architecture and Interior Design issue licenses and adopt the rules governing professional documents.

Section 471.025(1) requires every "final professional document" prepared by a licensed engineer for public record to be signed by the licensee, dated, and sealed. Section 481.221(2) imposes the parallel requirement for architects. The administrative rules implementing those statutes lay out two acceptable forms of authentication: a wet signature with embossed or applied seal, or a digital or electronic signature meeting specific cryptographic and procedural requirements. The rules expressly exclude printed copies of either: a printed copy of an electronically signed document is "not considered signed and sealed," and a scanned image of a wet signature is not a substitute for a proper digital signature.

The Florida Notary statute, section 117.05, authorizes a notary to perform a defined set of acts, including supervising the making of a photocopy of an original document and attesting to the trueness of the copy. The statute carves out vital records and public records (section 117.05(12)(a)). It does not authorize a notary to certify that a signature or seal complies with state law. Doing so would be the unauthorized practice of law under The Fla. Bar v. Fuentes.

The interpretive principle from Alsop v. Pierce is the workhorse of this opinion: when the law specifies how something must be done, that specification is also a prohibition on doing it any other way. Read together with the engineering and architecture licensing rules, that principle means a county building official cannot improvise an alternative authentication procedure on the fly; the only acceptable forms are those the statutes and rules identify.

Common questions

Q: Can a notary make a true-and-correct copy of an engineer's signed-and-sealed plan set at all?
A: A notary may, under section 117.05(12)(a), supervise the making of a photocopy and attest to its trueness, as long as the original is not a vital record and is not a public record where a copy can be obtained from the custodian. So the act of notarizing a copy is permitted in many situations. The opinion just says the resulting notarized copy is not legally equivalent to the original for permit-review purposes.

Q: What about electronically signed documents?
A: Acceptable, if they meet the statutory and rule requirements. Florida engineers and architects can digitally sign drawings using compliant software and procedures (Fla. Admin. Code R. 61G15-23.005(e); 61G15-30.009; 61G1-16.005). The signed electronic document, transmitted electronically, is the authoritative version. A printed paper copy of that electronic document is not signed and sealed and cannot be used as the original.

Q: Can the applicant just bring the original signed and sealed plans to the permit counter?
A: Yes. The opinion does not say there is anything wrong with submitting originals, and that is the most straightforward path. The issue is only with substituting a photocopy for the original.

Q: What should a county building official do when a notarized photocopy is submitted?
A: The opinion's framing is that the official cannot rely on the notarized copy as the equivalent of the signed and sealed original. The official should require either the original or a properly transmitted electronic version, then make and retain a public-records copy of the actual original itself.

Q: Is a notary at risk for stamping these copies?
A: A notary attesting only to the trueness of a photocopy under section 117.05(12)(a) is performing an authorized notarial act, with statutory limits. A notary attesting that the signature on the original "complies with state law" is making a legal-sufficiency representation. The Fla. Bar v. Fuentes and the Florida Bar's unauthorized-practice rules do not allow that, so the second form of attestation puts the notary at risk regardless of what the county does with the document.

Citations

Statutes and rules:

• §§ 117.05, 117.05(12)(a), 119.011(12), 471.025(1), 481.221(2), Fla. Stat. (2018)
• chs. 471 (Engineering), 481 (Architecture, Interior Design, and Landscape Architecture), Fla. Stat. (2018)
• Fla. Admin. Code Rules 61G15-23.004(3)(c)3.; 61G15-23.005(4)(c)3.; 61G15-23.005(e); 61G15-30.009; 61G1-16.005(1)(a)

Cases:

• The Fla. Bar v. Fuentes, 190 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 1966)
• Alsop v. Pierce, 19 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 1944)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/ag-opinions/professional-documents-authenticity-notaries
• Original PDF: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/print/pdf/node/8017

Original opinion text

Mr. Herbert W.A. Thiele

County Attorney

301 South Monroe Street, Suite 202

Leon County Courthouse

Tallahassee, Florida 3230l

Dear Mr. Thiele:

On behalf of Leon County (“County”), you have requested an opinion regarding the question set forth below. It concerns the status of copies of original professional documents submitted to a governmental permitting authority—here, the County—in connection with a permit application (e.g., for proposed construction of buildings, bridges, or roadways), where the applicant (1) represents that the documents from which such copies were made are original signed and sealed engineering or architectural documents and (2) purports to rely on the documents in submitting its application for the County’s permitting determination. Specifically, your (rephrased) question is:

“Can such copies be treated as the legal and functional equivalent of original signed and sealed engineering documents for purposes of review of the permit applications which depend upon them where the copies are accompanied by the ‘attestation’ of a third-party notary to the effect that:

(1) the copies are ‘true and correct’ copies of the originals, or

(2) the signature and seal on the originals ‘comply with State law’?”[1]

Attorney General Pam Bondi has asked that I respond to your letter.

As a preliminary matter, under section 117.05, Florida Statutes (2018), a notary public “may supervise the making of a photocopy of an original document and attest to the trueness of the copy, provided the document is…[not] a public record, if a copy can be made by the custodian of the public record.” Because, under the scenario described, neither the original document nor a duly authorized electronically signed and sealed copy[2] is submitted to the permitting authority, attesting to the trueness of such copy would appear to be a notarial act which is authorized by the statute.[3] See generally § 119.011(12), Fla. Stat. (2018) (“‘Public records’ means all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, tapes, photographs, films, sound recordings, data processing software, or other material, regardless of the physical form, characteristics, or means of transmission, made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business by any agency.”) (Emphasis added).

However, it does not appear that chapter 117, Florida Statutes, authorizes a notary to opine on the legal sufficiency of the signature and seal on an original document (from which a copy has been made for submittal to the permitting entity) by attesting that the signature and seal on the original “comply with state law.” Cf. The Fla. Bar v. Fuentes, 190 So. 2d 748, 749–51 (Fla. 1966) (enjoining a notary public from performing legal activities which could be rendered only by lawyers who have the training and knowledge to perform them). Therefore, submittal of a document in which a notary purports to attest to the legal sufficiency of the signature and seal on the original adds nothing of legal significance in connection with the permitting authority’s consideration of the copy in support of the application.

The only question left, then, is whether a true and correct copy of a signed and sealed engineering or architectural document[4] submitted to a permitting entity in lieu of the original provides a legal and practical equivalent for purposes of evaluating a permit application which relies on the original document. As discussed below, applying the criteria specified in governing statutes and implementing rules, it does not.

While (as set forth in the memorandum of law accompanying your opinion request) the operative statutes[5] and implementing rules[6] variously contemplate the use of electronic or digital signatures or seals in connection with the creation of signed and sealed professional documents, there are no provisions authorizing printed copies of complying original documents to be deemed signed and sealed documents. To the contrary, rules applicable to such professional documents reflect that "[p]rinted copies of this document are not considered signed and sealed[,]”[7] and that “[a] scanned image of an original signature shall not be used in lieu of a digital or electronic signature.”[8]

“When the Legislature has prescribed the mode, that mode must be observed. When the controlling law directs how a thing shall be done that is, in effect, a prohibition against its being done in any other way.”[9] Consistent with these principles, a professional document provided to the County may only be relied upon as an authentic signed and sealed document if, based upon the County’s review, the actual document submitted complies with applicable statutory and rule requirements.

Thus, where a “true and correct copy” (lacking the statutorily prescribed evidence of authenticity) is submitted to the County, there is no way to ascertain from the copy that the original is an authentic signed, sealed, and dated professional document on which the County may rely in its permit application evaluation; nor has a signed, sealed, and dated final professional document complying with statutory requirements been received by the County for its consideration and retention as a public record.[10] I trust that these informal observations will assist you in advising the County on this matter.

Sincerely,

Teresa L. Mussetto

Senior Assistant Attorney General

TLM/tsh

[1] The County also asked a second question: “If yes, are the original signed and sealed engineer/architect plans kept by the third party considered public records that must be retained and made available in accordance with the Public Records Law?” Because this office has concluded that the answer to the first question is “No,” the second question is not addressed.

[2] See Fla. Admin. Code R. 61G15-23.005(e) (“Procedures for Electronically Signing and Sealing Electronically Transmitted Plans, Specifications, Reports or Other Documents.”); Fla. Admin. Code R. 61G15-30.009 (“Retention of Engineering Documents.”).

[3] See § 117.05 (12)(a), Fla. Stat. (2018) (“A notary public may supervise the making of a photocopy of an original document and attest to the trueness of the copy, provided the document is neither a vital record in this state, another state, a territory of the United States, or another country, nor a public record, if a copy can be made by the custodian of the public record.”).

[4] For purposes of these informal comments, we assume that the original documents are properly signed and sealed engineering or architectural documents. Under the scenario described, however, the County could not confirm the authenticity of originals by reviewing copies lacking the statutorily-prescribed indicia of authenticity. See §§ 471.025(1), 481.221(2), Fla. Stat. (2018).

[5] See chaps. 471 (“Engineering), 481 (“Architecture, Interior Design, and Landscape Architecture”), Fla. Stat. (2018).

[6] See subtitles 61G1 (“Division of Professions Board of Architecture and Interior Design”), 61G15 (“Board of Professional Engineers”), Fla. Admin. Code.

[7] Fla. Admin. Code R. 61G15-23.004(3)(c)3.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 61G15-23.005(4)(c)3.

[8] Fla. Admin. Code R. 61G1-16.005(1)(a).

[9] Alsop v. Pierce, 19 So. 2d 799, 805–06 (Fla. 1944).

[10] See §§ 471.025(1), 481.221(2), Fla. Stat. (2018) (requiring all final professional documents filed for public record—including drawings, plans, specifications, or reports prepared or issued by a registered architect or engineer—to be signed by the licensee, dated, and sealed).