...
An interesting precedent is Rosenfeld v. Zerneck, a New York State court decision on the validity of an email signature.
Court Decision in Rosenfeld v. Zerneck
National Notary Organization Commentary on Rosenfeld v. Zerneck
Legal Context
Presumption of Attribution
The most significant problem with electronic signatures appears to be related to evidentiary rules and who bears the burden to prove that an electronic signature was executed by the party who "owns" the eSignature credentials; see How to Think About Electronic and Digital Signatures A Tutorial From a Litigator's PerspectiveA guide for federal agencies . This article explains that rules of evidence make it easy to introduce documents as evidence if they are signed with a holographic signature belonging to one of the parties in the case. But when documents are signed with an electronic signature, it may be easy for opposing council to shift the burden of proof that the "owner" of the eSignature credentials actually executed the signature. With holographic signatures there is a common law presumption of attribution from mere ownership, and that presumption may not apply to electronic signatures. However, it may be possible to rectify this issue by inserting appropriate legal language into the eSignature credential registration and/or signing ceremony processes.
Electronic Signature Guidance for Federal Agencies
A useful resource is U.S. Department of Justice LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS IN DESIGNING AND IMPLEMENTING ELECTRONIC PROCESSES: A GUIDE FOR FEDERAL AGENCIES, from which I quote at length below:
...