In an earlier post, we addressed a straightforward question: Are electronic signatures legally valid in Texas? The short answer then, and now, is: yes. Texas law generally recognizes electronic signatures, and the underlying legal framework has not materially changed. The question today is not whether electronic signatures are valid under statute, but how documents are challenged in practice, and how lawyers manage that risk.
The law has not changed
As noted in our earlier post, Texas has adopted the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, codified in Chapter 322 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code. In general terms, an electronic signature may satisfy a legal signature requirement if:
- The parties agree to conduct the transaction electronically; and
- The signature is attributable to the signer.
(Our previous post’s four element breakdown maps to the above as follows: (1) The parties agree to conduct the transaction electronically [i.e., “Consent”], see §§ 322.005, 322.008; and the signature is attributable to the signer, which in practice turns on issues of (2) intent and association with the record [i.e., “Association”], see §§ 322.002(8), 322.009(a); (3) attribution and authentication [i.e., “Attribution”], see § 322.009(a)–(b); and (4) the ability to retain and reproduce the electronic record [i.e., “Record Retention”], see §§ 322.012, 322.013).
Validity is not the same as resistance to challenge
In practice, the question is not so much whether an electronic signature is legally permitted as whether the signed document will be easy or difficult to defend later if something goes wrong. Disputes generally arise down the road, when a document is questioned by a counterparty, a lender or title company, a court, or an adverse party with an incentive to create doubt. Electronic signatures, though perfectly valid, can offer an unnecessary hook upon which to secure a challenge, such as calling into question one or more of the above elements (i.e., Consent, Association, etc.).
Why some firms still prefer wet ink
Our firm still prefers wet‑ink signatures in blue ink for certain documents and contexts, even when electronic signatures would likely be enforceable, not because electronic signatures are improper, but because wet ink removes the aforementioned opportunity to challenge the signature.
Wet‑ink originals simplify authentication, reduce disputes about who signed and how, make it easier to distinguish originals from copies, and reduce dependence on platform‑specific audit trails years later. Blue ink, specifically, serves a practical evidentiary purpose: It makes original signatures immediately identifiable and avoids confusion when documents are copied, scanned, or reproduced.
For consistency, we use the same type of blue‑ink pens for wet‑ink signings–namely, Uni‑ball 207 or Uni‑ball 307 pens–because their pigment‑based inks are designed to be more resistant to fading and alteration than ordinary dye‑based inks. That consistency is not ceremonial. It is part of making documents easier to defend if they are ever scrutinized.
This is a risk decision, not a legal requirement
None of this means electronic signatures are improper or unsafe as a category. Many transactions are well‑suited to electronic execution, and we routinely use electronic signatures where appropriate. The point is narrower: Some choices are cheaper or easier to avoid than to have to explain or defend later. When the cost of challenge would outweigh the convenience of electronic execution, wet ink is often the better choice. That is a judgment call informed by experience.
The takeaway
Electronic signatures are legally valid in Texas. That has not changed. Nevertheless, what matters in practice is not solely what the law allows but also reducing opportunities for challenge, particularly when there is little cost to such reduction. Choosing between electronic and wet‑ink execution is ultimately a question of risk management, not lawfulness.
If you have questions about whether a particular document is better signed electronically or in wet ink, that determination should be made in consultation with an attorney, not necessarily in aggressive adherence to statute.
