[_jal]

Like anything, but especially in law, the devil is in the details. Docusign has been rejected by a court before -

https://www.cryptomathic.com/news-events/blog/us-court-rejec...

That was fact-specific and doesn't call Docusign invalid, but it does demonstrate why simply "using Docusign" might not save you in a dispute.

[gamblor956]

Not really applicable, in that situation there were local court rules requiring physical documents and "wet" signatures (i.e., signed in person with a pen). The UST specifically noted that absent those rules DocuSign would have been acceptable.

Also...the article is from 7 years ago...

[_jal]

Of course it is applicable. The Docusign users failed to use it in a way that would be legally valid.

If you have a more recent case that seems relevant or invalidates that result, post it. Otherwise I'm not sure what being 7 years old has to do with anything.

[gamblor956]

You're attempting to make a mountain of a single instance, years ago, of an electronic signature being rejected by a non-judicial officer in a quasi-judicial proceeding and trying to make it out like a general policy when it is so rare an exception that no court before or since has ruled against the consensual use of electronic signatures by the parties.

If you have any evidence that electronic signatures can't be used in court proceedings, and not just in the limited circumstance of one US Trustee's meeting room, the onus is on you.

[_jal]

> If you have any evidence

I never claimed I did, and I have no interest in talking to someone intent on making up crap that I never said, so I'm going to ignore you now. Life is too short to put up with bad-faith bullshitters.