WSBA Editorial Advisory Committee
Allison N. Peryea, Chair
Scott T. Ashby
Dominic M. Carucci
James W. Gayton
Kurt E. Kruckeberg
Display Ads (call or email for specifications and rate sheet), Announcements
(1/4 page=$250; 1/2 page=$450), and Professionals ($50 per copy inch):
Contact email@example.com or 206-498-9860.
Classifieds: Advance payment required. See classified pages for rates, submission guidelines, and payment information. Questions: email classifieds@
WSBA SERVICE CEN TER
800-945-WSBA (9722) | 206-443-WSBA (9722) | firstname.lastname@example.org
WSBA Ethics Line (for lawyers only): 206-727-8284 or 800-945-9722, ext.
WSBA Lawyer Services (for lawyers only): 206-727-8268 or 800-945-
9722, ext. 8268 — Lawyers Assistance Program; Law Office Management
WSBA Website: www.wsba.org
N WSidebar, the WSBA Blog: email@example.com; http://nwsidebar.wsba.org
N WLawyer: firstname.lastname@example.org
N WLawyer CLE Calendar: email@example.com
N WLawyer Online: http://nwlawyer.wsba.org
NWLawyer relies on submissions from WSBA members and nonmembers
that are of interest to readers. Please email firstname.lastname@example.org if you
have questions about your submission or to discuss a topic for an article.
Articles should not have been submitted to any other publications and
become the property of the WSBA. Articles typically run 1,500 words. Cita-
tions should be incorporated into the body of the article and kept to a mini-
mum. Please include a brief author’s biography, including contact informa-
tion, at the end of the article. High-resolution graphics and photographs
are requested. Authors should provide a high-resolution digital photo of
themselves with their submission. Send articles to email@example.com.
The editor reserves the right to edit articles as deemed appropriate. The
editor may work with the writer, but no additional proofs of articles will be
provided. The editor reserves the right to determine when and if to publish
an article. For a How-To guide on writng an article for NWLawyer, email
firstname.lastname@example.org. NWLawyer is published nine times a year (FEB, MAR,
APR/MAY, JUN, JUL/AUG, SEP, OCT, NOV, DEC/JAN) on or about the
first of the month. The current circulation is approximately 31,000.
Shelley K. Simcox
Scott E. Snyder
Gregory R. Tolbert
Randy J. Trick
Ann E. Danieli, 7th-North Dist.
Barbara J. Rhoads-Weaver,
Andrea S. Jarmon, 8th Dist.
Elijah Forde, 9th Dist.
Philip L. Brady, 10th Dist.
Mario M. Cava, At-large
Karen Denise Wilson, At-large
Robin L. Haynes, At-large (YLC)
Kathryn L. Ludwick
Douglas A. Pierce
Isham M. Reavis
Anthony D. Gipe, President
William D. Hyslop, President-elect
Patrick A. Palace, Imm. Past-President
Kenneth W. Masters, 1st Dist.; Treasurer
Bradford E. Furlong, 2nd Dist.
Jill A. Karmy, 3rd Dist
Gerald J. Moberg, 4th Dist.
Hon. Paul A. Bastine, 5th Dist.
Keith M. Black, 6th Dist.
Cheese has company
I write regarding “The Cheese Stands
Alone” in the JUL/AUG 2014 NWLawyer
Tech Issue. It made me wonder how it can
be that Washington is currently a center
and leader of tech and e-commerce, when
the article’s premise is that WA cannot
succeed absent adoption of the Uniform
Electronic Transactions Act (UETA).
Being the co-author of a treatise that
focuses on e-commerce, including the
federal Electronic Signatures in Global
and National Commerce Act (ESIGN) and
UETA, and having helped clients wrestle
with both, my personal view is that WA is
lucky not to have adopted UETA. UETA is
a siren’s song, i.e., its alluring promise of
“uniformity” is not reality (check out CA’s
myriad exceptions from scope and CA’s
substantive amendments) and it is perpetually frozen in time to 1999 (ESIGN
preempts any other version). Some courts
in states with UETA do not even base
their decisions on it (e.g., recently, a Florida court inexplicably used a non-UETA
rule in Title 1 of a statute that, in Title II,
Even if “standing alone” were a reason to adopt UETA, Washington actually does not stand alone. It at least stands
with N Y and that is pretty good company.
N Y rejected UETA, adopting a minimalist
statute to allow the remainder of NY law
to parallel ESIGN (see Naldi v. Grunberg,
2010 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7173 (2010)).
The status in WA is essentially the same,
i.e., ESIGN largely controls (subject to
significant exceptions that also exist in
UETA) because WA did not adopt UETA.
There is a debate that ESIGN doesn’t cover “governmental affairs” and it clearly
does not cover “intrastate” transactions,
but the latter are almost ephemeral in the
computer age, and the “governmental affairs” debate is based on flawed logic (the
logic for viewing governmental affairs as
excluded from ESIGN would mean that
consumers transactions are excluded
from UETA). Neither argument is persuasive and any gaps can be solved without
adoption of UETA (language to that effect
was discussed at a legislative work session a year or so ago).
None of this is to say there are no
problems in e-commerce. There are. But
they are not created by WA’s failure to
adopt UETA and will not be uniformly
solved by adopting it. And the Washington Electronic Authentication Act
(WEAA)? The article is correct that it is