House judiciary committee advances bill to authorize remote online notarization, adds new penalties for unauthorized legal practice

The House Judiciary–Juvenile Committee on Tuesday voted to advance Senate Bill 8, which would permit remote online notarization in Georgia, require audiovisual recording and electronic journaling of each remote notarial act for 10 years, and add criminal penalties tied to unauthorized practice of law.

Representative Gullett, the bill’s sponsor, told the committee that remote online notarization (RON) is “basically Zoom for notarizations” and outlined the bill’s three-part identity-verification regimen: presentation of a government ID, third‑party credential analysis and identity proofing, followed by a live video notarization by a Georgia-based notary who applies an electronic seal. She said the bill explicitly redefines “appear” to include compliant communication technologies so that a RON act satisfies Georgia statutes requiring personal appearance, with the exception of wills, trusts and estates.

The bill would give the Georgia Superior Court Clerks’ Cooperative Authority (GSCCCA) authority to adopt technical standards, add 23 defined terms to Title 45, and require notaries who perform remote acts to identify their technology and repository providers, maintain a $2,000 surety bond, complete a clerk‑authority course and pass an exam. Each RON session must generate an audiovisual recording and a journal entry stored in a vendor repository and retained for a minimum of 10 years.

Commercial and legal witnesses told the committee they support the RON technical framework but urged changes to a separate provision addressing the unlicensed practice of law (UPL). Amy Huskins, a commercial real estate partner at Duane Morris, said the RON portions of the bill are “a really perfect” technical fit for commercial transactions but urged caution on section 3.1(d), arguing its language—particularly the phrases “directly or indirectly”—could reach bank directors or affiliates. “Because this language is so broad… it could be real estate agents, banks that make loans,” Huskins said, and that the paragraph “is viewed by many people including presidents of banks in the state of Georgia as including bank directors who may be deemed affiliates who would be covered by this misdemeanor.”

Lauren Foster of Parker Poe, speaking for the Georgia Commercial Real Estate Coalition, warned that severe criminal penalties for UPL could “have a chilling effect on business and closings,” slow transactions and raise costs as industry participants seek protection from liability. Foster urged the committee to narrow the provision or carve out commercial closings, saying the Georgia Supreme Court is already the “ultimate arbiter” of UPL issues.

Committee members asked practical questions about RON operations. Representative Panich, citing pandemic-era use, asked how a party would obtain a recording to contest a notarization; Gullett said recordings go to an approved repository and “you could get it” for litigation. Representative Fincher questioned the proposed maximum fee for a remote notarization and suggested raising it from $25 to $50 to reflect vendor costs; Gullett said she understood the concern but worried a higher fee could hinder access.

Supporters and opponents also debated whether the UPL language in the bill duplicates current law. A committee member cited OCGA provisions and said portions “mirror the current law,” while witnesses responded they still believe the statutory phrasing is overbroad as drafted and should be tightened to avoid unintended liability.

After brief discussion, Representative Dubnick moved that the committee pass the committee substitute for Senate Bill 8 (LC443546S); the motion was seconded and carried after a voice vote in which the chair said there was one recorded opposition. The committee passed the bill and adjourned.

The committee’s vote moves the bill forward in the legislative process; the measure’s technical RON provisions received support from commercial notaries and real estate practitioners, while industry witnesses urged the legislature to narrow or clarify the UPL penalty language to avoid sweeping in nonlawyer commercial participants.

Next steps: the bill advances from committee; the transcript did not specify the committee’s next scheduled action on the bill nor identify the name of the opposing member who voted against the motion.