Ethics & Prohibited Acts for PA Notaries

A Pennsylvania notary commission is a license to be trusted, not a license to be convenient. The list of things that will cost you that commission — or cost you a felony conviction — is not abstract. It lives in two places: 57 Pa.C.S. § 323 (the statutory sanctions framework) and 4 Pa. Code § 167.121 (the regulation that enumerates 26 specific acts and omissions the Department of State (DOS) will discipline you for). This pillar walks through the whole landscape — the 26 items, the five ethical traps that catch working notaries most often, the real disciplinary orders DOS has issued since 2022, and the Schell deed-fraud indictment that shows where the regulatory violations end and the felony indictments begin.

TL;DR — the five categories that get PA notaries in trouble

Almost every PA notary sanction, criminal charge, or civil judgment traces to one of these five failures:

Notarizing without personal appearance. The signer isn’t physically in the room (or on the approved remote platform). This is the single most common RULONA violation.
Unauthorized practice of law (UPL). Drafting, advising on, or “explaining” a legal document — especially in the immigration context under the “notario” trap.
Conflict of interest. Notarizing where you or your spouse have a direct or pecuniary interest, or for your own signature.
Backdating, pre-signed certificates, and journal tampering. Putting a date, stamp, or signature on a record at the wrong time or in the wrong order.
Identity-verification failures. Skipping the ID check, accepting inadequate credentials, or executing a certificate with a statement the notary knows to be false.

Everything that follows is a deeper look at each of those categories, with citations to the governing statutes and regulations, and to the cases that show how DOS and Pennsylvania prosecutors enforce them.

The statutory framework: how § 323, § 325, and § 167.121 work together

Three pieces of PA law define “ethics and prohibited acts” for notaries:

57 Pa.C.S. § 323 — Sanctions. The general authority. DOS may deny, refuse to renew, revoke, suspend, reprimand, or condition a commission for acts or omissions showing the notary “lacks the honesty, integrity, competence or reliability” to serve. Subsection (a) enumerates nine high-level triggers: failure to comply with the chapter; fraudulent application; felony or crimen falsi conviction; civil fraud finding; failure to discharge a required duty; false or misleading advertising; violation of a DOS regulation; out-of-state commission discipline; and failure to maintain a bond. Subsection (a.1) authorizes up to $1,000 per act or omission in administrative penalties.
57 Pa.C.S. § 325 — Prohibited Acts. The four hard prohibitions at the statute level: (a) a commission does not authorize practice of law or immigration work; (b) no false or deceptive advertising; (c) no “notario” or “notario publico” designation except by attorneys; and (d)–(e) no withholding of a signer’s original record.
4 Pa. Code § 167.121 — Acts or omissions providing the basis for sanctions. The regulatory expansion. This is the 26-item list DOS uses as its enforcement checklist. Every violation in § 167.121 feeds back into § 323(a)(7) (“violation of a DOS regulation”) and § 323(a)(1) (“failure to comply with the chapter”).

Reading the list together: § 323 is the hammer (what DOS can do); § 325 is the statute-level floor (what the General Assembly prohibited outright); § 167.121 is the detailed behavior code. When a DOS disciplinary order cites “4 Pa. Code § 167.121(3)” or “57 Pa.C.S. § 325(c),” that’s the specific conduct the agency concluded the notary committed.

The § 167.121 26-item prohibited-acts list — in plain English

The 2026 final regulations list 26 acts or omissions under 4 Pa. Code § 167.121(a). They are grouped here by theme, with one-sentence plain-English descriptions.

Conflict of interest (items 1–2)

Notarizing your own signature or statement. You cannot be both the notary and the signer.
Notarizing a spouse’s signature where either spouse has a direct or pecuniary interest. The spouse rule is categorical when financial interest is involved.

Certificate and journal integrity (items 3–8)

Pre-stamping or pre-associating your seal with a record before the act is performed. The seal goes on after the appearance and verification — never before.
Post-dating or pre-dating notarial acts. The certificate date must be the actual date of the act.
Altering a record after notarization, or altering the certificate for anything other than a ministerial error.
Altering, inserting, or deleting journal entries except to correct a clerical error.
Retaining a customer’s record or ID credential (or a copy) unless permitted by law.
Issuing a personal check with insufficient funds to the Commonwealth, DOS, or a recorder of deeds/prothonotary for a required fee.

Scope and territoriality (items 9–10)

Performing a notarial act in PA when not commissioned or not authorized.
Performing a notarial act in another state under authority of your PA commission. Your territorial jurisdiction is Pennsylvania, full stop (57 Pa.C.S. § 303).

Misrepresentation of authority (items 11–14)

Claiming powers, qualifications, rights, or privileges you don’t have. No “Certified Notary” tiers; no “Notary Signing Agent” claims of legal authority.
Using “notario,” “notario publico,” “notario publica,” or any non-English equivalent in a way that misrepresents authority.
Unauthorized practice of any regulated profession, including law.
Using your title or official stamp for any purpose other than performing a notarial act.

Personal appearance and identity (items 15–19)

Failing to require personal appearance through physical presence for an act on a tangible or electronic record.
Failing to require personal appearance of a remotely located individual when using approved communication technology (RON).
Failing to have personal knowledge or satisfactory evidence of identity (57 Pa.C.S. § 307).
Executing a certificate that contains a statement the notary knows to be false.
Placing the official stamp over any signature or over any writing in the notarial certificate.

Stamp and equipment misuse (items 20–21)

Letting any other person use your official stamp for any purpose.
Using another notary’s stamp or non-inking embosser to perform an act.

Disciplinary and commercial-paper violations (items 22–26)

Violating a DOS disciplinary order.
Issuing a certificate of dishonor on commercial paper owned or held for collection by a financial institution when the notary is a party in an individual capacity.
Issuing a certificate of dishonor on a non-commercial record that isn’t a negotiable instrument.
Issuing a certificate of dishonor that doesn’t comply with 13 Pa.C.S. § 3505.
Filing sovereign-citizen “accepted for value” / “conditional acceptance” / “notice of protest” instruments. The final regulation enumerates seven specific sub-categories of these abusive filings.

All 26 apply whether the conduct occurs inside or outside Pennsylvania, per § 167.121(b). Out-of-state misconduct by a PA notary is still a PA sanction ground.

The 2016 proposed regulation used “ministerial error” in item 6. The 2026 final regulation uses “clerical error” — narrower, and a deliberate tightening by DOS.

Unauthorized practice of law (UPL) — the single biggest gray zone

UPL is the prohibition most PA notaries stumble into without meaning to, because the line between “authenticating a signature” and “explaining a document” is narrower than it looks.

What the statute actually prohibits

57 Pa.C.S. § 325(a) says a notary’s commission does not authorize the notary to:

(1) assist persons in drafting legal records, give legal advice, or otherwise practice law; (2) act as an immigration consultant or expert on immigration matters; (3) represent a person in a judicial or administrative proceeding relating to immigration, citizenship, or related matters; or (4) receive compensation for any of the above.

§ 167.121(13) folds UPL into the sanctions framework, and 4 Pa. Code § 167.124 tells DOS to apply the Pennsylvania Bar Association UPL Committee Formal Opinion 2006-01 when evaluating whether conduct crossed the line.

Concrete examples of UPL territory

Each of these has been treated as UPL in PA Bar UPL Committee opinions, DOS guidance, or out-of-state equivalents:

Explaining a “due-on-sale,” “subordination,” or “prepayment penalty” clause in a mortgage to a borrower at closing.
Telling a signer that a power of attorney will or won’t cover a particular transaction.
Recommending which box to check on a beneficiary form, a deed (joint-tenancy vs. tenants-in-common), or a will codicil.
Drafting or “filling in the blanks” on a deed, affidavit, or petition at the signer’s request.
Advising a signer whether to sign at all.
Preparing or translating immigration paperwork for a fee.

The safe line: a notary authenticates that a signature was made and by whom. A notary does not authenticate what the document means.

The “notario público” trap

Warning — the “notario” designation is a RULONA hard stop. Under § 325(c), only PA notaries who are also attorneys may use “notario,” “notario publico,” or any non-English equivalent. § 167.121(12) treats a non-attorney using that designation as a sanctionable act. The reason is historical and specific: in Mexico, most of Central America, and many Latin American countries, a notario público is a senior legal professional with training roughly comparable to a U.S. attorney. Spanish-speaking immigrants who see a “notario público” shingle in a Pennsylvania storefront often reasonably believe the person inside can advise on immigration law. They cannot.

If a PA notary advertises in Spanish, the signage and materials must not use “notario.” The NNA’s bilingual advisory and PA Bar guidance both recommend “notario” be replaced with “fedatario” or simply “notary public (PA)” plus the statutory disclaimer that the notary is not an attorney and is not authorized to give legal or immigration advice.

Conflict of interest — the “direct or pecuniary interest” test

4 Pa. Code § 167.121(1)–(2) sets the hard rules; the definition of “direct or pecuniary interest” in § 167.2 supplies the test.

“Direct or pecuniary interest. — Interest in the transaction or record resulting in actual or potential gain or advantage, financial or otherwise, other than salary, hourly wage, or notarial fee. Includes bonuses, provided the bonus is not contingent on completion of the notarized transaction.” — 4 Pa. Code § 167.2

That definition is the whole game. A notary-employee drawing a salary at a title company isn’t “interested” in a closing merely by being paid. A notary who earns a commission only if the deal closes is interested. A notary who is the grantee on the deed is interested.

What about family members?

PA law does not categorically bar notarizations for family members other than spouses (and spouses only when there’s a financial interest). A parent, sibling, or child can be a notary customer if the notary has no pecuniary interest in the transaction. But best practice — across DOS guidance, PAN, and nearly every title insurer — is to decline and send the relative to a disinterested notary. Even if the act is lawful, the appearance of partiality weakens the certificate’s evidentiary weight and invites later challenge. See the cluster article Can a notary notarize for family? for the full analysis.

Seplow’s implication for conflict claims

Seplow v. Closing Pro, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-03628 (E.D. Pa. 2024) — discussed at length below — held that RULONA creates no private right of action. A signer who believes a notary acted while conflicted cannot sue directly under § 323 or § 325 for RULONA damages. The signer’s remedies are (1) a DOS complaint, (2) an Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) claim where applicable, and (3) common-law unjust-enrichment or fraud claims. That channels conflict-of-interest enforcement through DOS administratively and through consumer-protection counsel — not through direct RULONA lawsuits.

Identity verification failures — § 167.121(17) and the presumption of regularity

Failure to have “personal knowledge or satisfactory evidence of identity” is § 167.121(17). The satisfactory-evidence standard is defined in 57 Pa.C.S. § 307 — a current government-issued ID with photo, signature, and physical description, or a credible identifying witness who personally knows the signer.

The evidentiary consequence of a valid certificate is fierce. In In re Jones, 308 B.R. 223 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2003), a Chapter 7 debtor tried to avoid a mortgage by testifying — along with her spouse — that no notary had been physically present at the signing. The court held that the debtor’s and her spouse’s testimony alone was insufficient to rebut the presumption of regularity arising from the notary’s certificate. That presumption protects legitimate closings, but it also means a notary who falsifies a certificate is creating a document that will be believed by courts, recorders, and lenders until someone proves the lie — and the notary will be the one holding the bag when they do.

The Jones doctrine in two sentences. A properly executed notary certificate carries a strong evidentiary presumption of truth. A notary who cuts corners on ID verification is manufacturing evidence that courts will rely on — which is exactly why § 167.121(17) and § 167.121(18) (false statements in a certificate) are treated as lack-of-integrity offenses.

Backdating and pre-signed certificates — where RULONA violations become felonies

Two of the § 167.121 items define this category:

§ 167.121(3) — affixing or logically associating the official stamp or signature before the notarial act has been performed.
§ 167.121(4) — post-dating or pre-dating notarial acts.

Both are lack-of-integrity offenses under § 323. Both are also doors into the criminal code — because a notary who dates a certificate to a date the act did not actually occur is creating a false instrument. Depending on how the document is used, that can trigger:

Forgery under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4101.
Tampering with public records under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4911 when the document is recorded.
Unsworn falsification to authorities under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904.
Impersonating a notary public under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4913, when a non-commissioned person uses a stamp.

Case study: Commonwealth v. Schell (Phila. C.P. 2025)

The cautionary tale — the one every PA notary should know — is Commonwealth v. Gwendolyn Schell, announced by Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner on April 30, 2025. Schell, a Germantown notary public, allegedly participated from 2017 onward in a deed-fraud ring that fraudulently transferred title to 21 Philadelphia homes. She is charged with approximately 250 counts across eight categories: Corrupt Organizations, Criminal Conspiracy, Theft by Unlawful Taking, Theft by Deception, Identity Theft, Forgery, Tampering with Public Records, and Securing Execution of Documents by Deception. The common thread: deeds notarized as if the record owner had personally appeared and signed, when the record owner was either deceased, out of the country, or simply never in the room.

The Schell indictment is the most prominent PA notary-fraud case in a decade. Every count flows from a single regulatory requirement: personal appearance under 57 Pa.C.S. § 306. The § 167.121(15) “failure to require personal appearance” violation that would cost a law-abiding notary her commission cost Schell — if the allegations are proven — roughly 250 criminal counts, several carrying felony exposure in the first and second degree.

Case studies at a glance

Schell (2025) — 21 stolen homes, ~250 counts. Lesson: personal appearance is the only thing separating a lawful acknowledgment from a forgery indictment.

Seplow (2024) — RULONA has no private right of action. Lesson: fee-schedule and ethics enforcement runs through DOS administratively, not through notary-vs.-signer civil suits.

In re Jones (2003) — A notary certificate carries a strong evidentiary presumption. Lesson: the certificate will be believed. Don’t falsify it.

Philadelphia’s “Deed-Fraud Task Force” produced eight additional arrests in January 2024 in a related ring, and PA legislators in 2024–25 have proposed statutory deed-fraud protections tracking the enforcement wave. The investigative climate for notaries working in deed and mortgage space has not been this aggressive in the modern RULONA era.

Misleading advertising — § 323(a)(6), § 325(b), § 167.121(11)–(12)

False or deceptive advertising is a standalone sanction trigger under § 323(a)(6) and a statute-level prohibition under § 325(b): “A notary public may not engage in false or deceptive advertising.” § 167.121(11) adds “making a representation that the notary has powers, qualifications, rights or privileges that the notary does not have.”

Common PA advertising violations:

“Certified Notary.” There is no PA “certification” credential — there is a commission. Describing yourself as “certified” suggests authority you don’t have.
“Attorney-equivalent” or “bilingual legal services.” A non-attorney notary cannot suggest, in any language, that their services substitute for an attorney’s.
“Notario público” in Spanish-language advertising. § 325(c); § 167.121(12).
“Approved by the Commonwealth” or “licensed by the state.” A commission is not a license to practice a profession.
Omitting the non-attorney disclaimer when advertising to an audience where UPL risk is heightened (immigration, tax, or benefit applications).

Any PA notary who is not also a licensed attorney and advertises services in a language other than English must include a plain-language disclaimer — in the same language — stating that the notary is not an attorney and cannot give legal or immigration advice. That’s the floor, not the ceiling.

Stamp, seal, and journal misuse — § 167.121(20)–(21); § 318

A notary’s official stamp is a controlled instrument. Letting anyone else use it — your spouse to save a trip, your boss to “handle it while you’re out,” your co-worker as a favor — is § 167.121(20). Using another notary’s stamp to perform an act is § 167.121(21). Both are treated as lack-of-integrity offenses.

57 Pa.C.S. § 318 requires that the stamp be under the notary’s “exclusive control” and that loss or theft be reported to DOS promptly. If the commission is suspended or revoked, the stamping device must be surrendered to DOS within 15 days under § 318(a)(2.1). These are not clerical requirements — conversion or theft of a notary’s stamp is referenced directly in § 323’s criminal-referral authority and under 18 Pa.C.S. § 4913 (impersonating a notary, including unauthorized use of an official stamp).

Journal integrity sits under § 167.121(6) and 57 Pa.C.S. § 319. Any alteration, insertion, or deletion beyond a clerical correction is sanctionable. And the 2026 final regulations made the rule on Social Security numbers categorical: no digits of an SSN may appear in the journal, ever — terminal-digit capture is now restricted to driver’s license or passport.

The DOS disciplinary process — how a complaint becomes a sanction

A complaint can originate from any of the following: a member of the public, a title company or lender, a court, a law-enforcement agency, another notary, or DOS’s own investigative staff. The procedural arc:

Complaint intake. DOS determines whether the matter is within its jurisdiction under 57 Pa.C.S. § 323(d). Out-of-state conduct by a PA notary is within jurisdiction under § 167.121(b).
Notice and response. The notary is notified and given an opportunity to respond, typically in writing.
Investigation. DOS may issue subpoenas, administer oaths, compel document production, and examine witnesses under § 323(d). Journal and certificate records are central.
Hearing. If the case isn’t resolved informally, a hearing is scheduled under 2 Pa.C.S. Chapters 5A and 7A (Administrative Agency Law).
Decision. DOS issues a sanction: no action, admonishment, reprimand, conditioning, suspension (active or stayed), revocation, or — in the case of serious misconduct — referral for criminal prosecution under the Commonwealth Attorneys Act.

Factors DOS weighs — § 167.123

4 Pa. Code § 167.123 lists thirteen factors: nature, number, and severity of the misconduct; evidence of honesty and integrity (or the lack of it); actual or potential harm; complaint history; prior discipline; aggravation and mitigation; other professional-license discipline; rehabilitation (including reference letters and proof of class attendance); criminal record; law-enforcement reports; willfulness; and negligence.

Recent published disciplinary orders

The DOS Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs publishes monthly Disciplinary Actions bulletins. Four recent notary orders illustrate the sanction ladder:

Notary	Year	Violation	Sanction
Lori S. Sobol (Pittsburgh)	2022	No personal appearance; no journal maintenance	Voluntary surrender of commission
Gbenga A. Oyetayo (Collingdale)	2024	RULONA breaches below the fraud threshold	18-month suspension — 3 months active, remainder stayed in favor of probation; 6 hours remedial education
Marvin Spodek (Pittsburgh)	2024	Misdemeanor crimen falsi conviction	4-year bar on re-appointment (retroactive to May 30, 2023)
Tina Miller (Wyomissing)	2024	RULONA violations	12-month suspension (stayed, probation); $1,500 administrative penalty + $600 probation assessment; 6 hours remedial education

Read together, these orders show the enforcement floor: failure of personal appearance or journal maintenance routinely costs a notary her commission or earns a stayed suspension with mandatory education. The financial exposure — $1,500 to $2,000 per order, plus up to $1,000 per act under § 323(a.1) — can exceed a year’s notary-fee income before the first remediation hour is served.

Real-world case studies — the doctrines that matter

Seplow v. Closing Pro, Inc. — RULONA has no private right of action

Brian Seplow bought a home in Philadelphia and alleged the closing agent charged $50 to notarize two signatures when the RULONA fee schedule caps the charge at $5 per signature. He sued on three theories: direct RULONA violation, unjust enrichment, and the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL). In 2024, Judge Chad F. Kenney of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed the direct RULONA count, holding that § 323(c)‘s “other remedies” language is a savings clause, not a private right of action. Unjust-enrichment and UTPCPL claims — and the class allegations — survived the motion to dismiss.

The practical reading: a signer cannot sue a PA notary directly under RULONA. Fee disputes and ethics violations are enforced administratively by DOS and, where relevant, through UTPCPL class actions or common-law claims. For notaries, this is a double-edged sword — no private RULONA liability, but every violation goes straight to DOS, which has the factors under § 167.123 to weigh and the revocation authority under § 323 to exercise.

Commonwealth v. Schell — the deed-fraud indictment

Discussed above. The direct lesson is simple: if a signer did not personally appear, the notary is not committing a regulatory violation — she is committing forgery. The 21 houses stolen in the alleged Schell scheme all trace to notarial certificates reciting personal appearance that did not occur. § 306 is the line between an acknowledgment and a felony.

In re Jones — the presumption of regularity

Discussed above. The doctrine runs both ways: the certificate protects the notary and every party who relies on the record, and it amplifies the harm when a notary falsifies. This is the legal reason DOS treats certificate integrity as a lack-of-integrity offense under § 323, not as a clerical mistake.

When to refuse — the notary’s duty to decline

Refusal is a power, not a failure. 57 Pa.C.S. § 309 reserves the signature-by-mark procedure (the statute is currently marked “Reserved”), and §§ 323 and 325 make clear that a notary’s primary duty is to decline rather than perform any act they cannot lawfully complete.

Refuse whenever:

The signer is not personally present (or not on an approved RON platform).
The signer cannot produce satisfactory evidence of identity.
The signer appears coerced, under duress, or unable to understand that they are signing.
You would have a direct or pecuniary interest in the transaction.
The document requires you to advise on its legal effect.
The document is incomplete (a notary acknowledges signatures, not blanks).
You are asked to backdate, pre-stamp, or alter any entry.
The document is a “sovereign citizen” filing of the type enumerated in § 167.121(26).

A refusal is never misconduct. A grudging proceed under pressure almost always is.

After discipline — reinstatement and the bar on reapplication

A revoked or surrendered commission does not mean permanent ineligibility, but the path back is narrow.

57 Pa.C.S. § 321(a)(5) excludes anyone disqualified under § 323 from eligibility. An active revocation is the disqualification.
4 Pa. Code § 167.122 enumerates dozens of criminal offenses (theft, forgery, bribery, perjury, obstruction, abuse of office) that trigger sanctioning authority for a conviction or ARD acceptance. These have no automatic expiration.
§ 167.125 requires the notary to self-report disciplinary action, criminal convictions, civil-fraud findings, UPL findings, and bond-claim payments to DOS within 30 days of the triggering event (or on next renewal, whichever is sooner).
Rehabilitation factors under § 167.123 — reference letters, proof of education completion, evidence of remedial conduct — can be weighed by DOS when the sanctioned notary reapplies. Spodek’s 2024 order (four-year re-appointment bar for a misdemeanor crimen falsi conviction) illustrates the rough calibration.

Practically: a reprimanded or suspended notary can often return to practice after satisfying the remedial terms (education hours, penalty payments, probation). A revoked notary with a crimen falsi conviction faces a multi-year wait and must make an affirmative rehabilitation showing. A notary convicted under the Schell charge sheet — if the allegations are proven — is not coming back.