Leaving a job should normally end an employee’s responsibility for documents created afterward.
But discovering that your professional credentials are still appearing on official paperwork months later can turn a clean departure into a serious concern.
One former California notary encountered exactly that after a past customer contacted them about a power of attorney supposedly notarized two months after they had left their document services job.
The paperwork contained their name, commission information, a convincing copy of their seal, and what appeared to be their signature.
Yet their physical stamp and journal had remained securely in their possession, and no matching journal entry existed.
Their former boss dismissed it as an old template someone had reused.
Scroll down to see why that explanation only made the notary more concerned about how many other documents might carry the same unauthorized credentials.
A former notary discovers her seal and signature on a document notarized months after she quit
Sometimes leaving a job does not end the risk created by the information left behind.
That is what makes the OP’s discovery so alarming.
She still possesses her physical seal and journal, yet a document dated almost two months after her departure apparently contains her commission information, seal image, and signature.
Her former boss calling it an “old template” does not make the situation harmless. If anything, it suggests someone may have digitally reproduced credentials that were never theirs to use.
California treats control of notarial materials seriously.
The Secretary of State’s 2026 Notary Public Handbook states that a notary’s official seal must remain under the notary’s direct and exclusive control.
It also states that the seal and title may be used only for rendering notarial services.
The OP’s continued possession of both her physical seal and journal therefore matters enormously because it helps establish that she did not simply leave those materials available at her former workplace.
The missing journal entry may be even more important.
A genuine California notarization normally generates a contemporaneous journal record.
A document carrying the OP’s credentials while her journal shows no corresponding act creates an obvious discrepancy worth preserving.
She should keep the original PDF exactly as received, preserve the customer’s message and her former boss’s response, make backups, and avoid altering the file while the matter is investigated.
This is also bigger than an internal workplace dispute.
The California Secretary of State explicitly says that complaints involving notarial duties can be submitted to its Notary Compliance section, while suspected criminal conduct such as forgery or fraud should be reported to local law enforcement or the district attorney where the alleged conduct occurred.
In other words, reporting both avenues would be reasonable rather than choosing one and assuming the other will handle everything.
Finding additional fraudulent documents may be harder because notarizations themselves are not stored in one universal California database.
The OP could, however, investigate records relevant to the transactions her former office handled, particularly county recorder records if documents were recordable.
Given the potential professional and financial consequences, consulting a California attorney experienced in notary, fraud, or professional-liability matters would also be prudent.
Most importantly, the OP should not accept the former boss’s reassurance that nobody “physically used” her stamp.
A convincing digital copy attached to a document can create exactly the appearance that a notary seal is intended to authenticate.
She is not overreacting by creating an official paper trail immediately.
If someone has been borrowing her professional identity, the safest position is to establish as early and clearly as possible that the real notary discovered it, preserved her journal and seal, documented the discrepancy, and reported it rather than allowing the false record to speak for her.
Here’s the input from the Reddit crowd:
These Redditors urged OP to report the suspected forgery to the appropriate authorities immediately
These commenters stressed urgency, documentation, and treating the incident as potential criminal forgery
These users warned that forged notarizations could create serious liability and future legal complications for OP
These users rejected the former employer’s explanation that the notarization was merely an innocent template mistake
This is far more serious than an employer casually reusing an old template.
A notarization bearing her commission information, copied seal, and apparent signature was created after she left, with no matching journal entry, potentially exposing her to consequences for something she never performed.
Keeping the original evidence and creating a clear paper trail should now take priority while the appropriate authorities determine how widely her credentials were used.
Do you think she should immediately report the suspected forgery, or first investigate how many documents may have been created in her name?
