Certifying copies of documents is silly.

Even in the post-truth world, the need to submit a certified copy of a document is stubbornly holding on in Australia. This is where a company or organisation demands that to progress your application, it will only accept an original document - or a copy which has been ‘certified as a true copy’ by a ‘qualified person’. This ‘certification’ is distinct from specific situations like witnessing a statutory declaration, a will, or a land titles VOI, though the same language is often used.

As far as I can see, getting a ‘certified copy’ doesn’t actually achieve anything, and many people suspect the same. We’re just doing it out of habit at this point. I argue that insisting on certified copies of documents outside of a specific statutory obligation doesn’t really achieve anything and just creates an extra burden which arbitrarily punishes certain groups. It’s not the biggest problem facing the world, but we should either do it properly, or not do it at all.

Any of the anointed ones with a ‘qualified’ occupation will have been asked, at some point in their careers, to certify that something is a true copy of something else. For a few glorious years I had a stamp which had the magic words prewritten on it, such was the volume of stuff which I was certifying. I’m a lawyer, so doing other people’s pointless paperwork is an accepted part of the job, but that’s not true for most of the jobs listed.

The whole concept of ‘certifying’ that one document is the same as another is a bit silly from the start. Humans aren’t particularly good at spotting differences between two things even if we’re trying our hardest. This is the core concept behind spot-the-difference puzzles and the ‘compare’ button in Word. Being a lawyer (or a colonel or a chiropractor) doesn’t automatically make one better at it. All they’re doing is giving a best guess and a signature. A dentist cannot reasonably be expected to scan, OCR, and compare documents, nor to take liability if they get it wrong.

One can somewhat tell from the wording that it’s all a bit of pretend, because it says ‘I certify that this is a true copy of X’, not ‘to the best of my knowledge and belief, this appears to be a copy of X’. This qualification is fairly standard language which any legally-informed person should insist upon, if they truly believed there was any consequence to their statement. Outside of the special categories like a stat dec, certifying a copy is not really a certification at all - is there a duty of care, and to whom is it owed? Is there a contractual relationship between the certifyee and the certifior, or the party relying on it? One might conceivably sue a notary for making a mistake if they’ve paid for the service; but the pharmacist who helped out in between prescriptions?

Lawyers are regularly slapped on the wrist by professional bodies for falsely attesting that they witnessed a signature, but that’s a question of professional standards which doesn’t apply to many of the other qualifying occupations. There’s also a difference between falsely certifying that a signature took place when it didn’t, and incorrectly certifying that one document is exactly the same as another. Incidentally, I would be interested to know if there are any lawyers out there who do insist on some sort of qualifying language to cover that situation, or who outright refuse to certify copies.

Certification also doesn’t mean that the original document is ‘authentic’ (except in an existentialist kind of way). By certifying that B is a true copy of A, I’m is not saying that either document is authentic. For all I know, I’ve just certified just a photocopy of a fraud is the same as the original fraud. For all I know, they’re going to swap out pages in the document after I’ve signed them, and reproduce my signature using the cunning expedient of a pen, some glass, and a desk lamp. For all I know, they’re going to scan it and edit the document to say whatever they like… but more on that in a moment.

So, certifying a copy: (1) doesn’t actually prove that document A is the same as document B; (2) doesn’t prove that either document is actually valid; and (3) probably doesn’t give the person getting the copy certified, or the third party relying on it, any rights against the person doing the certifying (though I’ve never been that good at torts). In WA at least, there isn’t any legislation about certifying a copy - ultimately, it’s about complying with the arbitrary rules of the organisation doing the insisting, which often happen to mirror the rules of oaths, stat decs, and the like.

So why do we have to do it?

Outside of the few specific legislative requirements, the main arguments I have seen, which I shall promptly strawman, are as follows:

• It creates a formal record that someone with authority has verified the copy against an original. It verifies that a person has looked at it and reckons they look about the same. The concept of a ‘person of authority’ is classist and doesn’t match with the accepted list of occupations, many of which would not be typically regarded as particularly authoritative.

• The certification process acts as a deterrent against fraud, because a qualified professional will examine the document. What makes a ‘qualified professional’ qualified to detect fraud? Even if, say, it’s a type of document a lawyer is familiar with, and they think it’s a fraud, they can still with all honesty certify that Fraud B is a copy of Fraud A.

• While the certifier may not be directly accountable for inaccuracies, there are still consequences (including criminal charges) for negligent or fraudulent certification. Professionals risk damaging their reputation if they are found to be careless or dishonest. For a notary or a lawyer? Sure. But are we going to punish a priest for making a mistake when they’re making an honest attempt?

• In many situations, it's impractical or impossible to present original documents. We have the internet on computers now.

Working with digital copies, as we usually now do, makes the whole concept ridiculous. It was always possible to change a signed document with a bit of handicraft, but now it’s comically easy. Most digitally-protected documents can be defeated in seconds. One could insist on paper copies, but I get the feeling nobody really cares enough to do so. I’m aware of at least one bank which accepts a scanned copy of a certified copy - making that certification somewhat meaningless. It won’t prevent even the least determined fraudster.

I acknowledge that this is not the biggest problem facing the world. However, requiring unnecessary pseudo-certification does impose costs and difficulties, often on the people who have plenty enough to deal with as is. An inner-city professional might have no problem finding another inner-city professional to certify their inner-city professional-type documents. What about someone who lives remotely, or has limited mobility, or is immunocompromised? Night shift workers, busy parents? I’m sure they work it out, because the current system gives them no choice, but it’s annoying and difficult. It also doesn’t really achieve anything.

One of the very few upsides of COVID is that we removed many of the pointless in-person errands from society. It’s bizarre to me that we’re holding on to this one.

There are some situations where it’s extremely important to have documents verified, and it makes sense to insist on the best possible practice. For those, we have clear rules, responsibilities, liabilities. There are more situations where an organisation is just demanding certified copies when there is no valid reason to do so, and the system used isn’t actually verifying anything at all. The rules are unclear and inconsistent, nobody’s really taking responsibility, nobody’s really liable. It’s just a thing that we’re still doing for some reason, like a 21st century letter of introduction.

Almost everyone carries a high quality scanner in their pockets. Outside of special cases, sending a high-quality scan of a document has the exact same ‘proof’ value as sending a scan upon which an arbitrary person has written some extra words - so why can’t we just do that?