6.3 Official Misconduct

The Two-Part Statutory Definition

CGS Sec. 3-94a defines official misconduct in two parts, and the exam expects you to recognize both. Official misconduct means: (A) a notary's performance of an act prohibited by the general statutes, or the failure to perform an act mandated by the general statutes; or (B) a notary's performance of a notarial act in a manner found to be negligent, illegal, or against the public interest.

The crucial takeaway is that misconduct is not limited to intentional fraud. Carelessness counts. A notary who fails to check identification, who leaves a certificate half-completed, or who skips required appearance has committed misconduct even with no bad intent.

Disciplinary Authority Under Sec. 3-94m

CGS Sec. 3-94m empowers the Secretary of the State to discipline notaries. The Secretary may deliver a written, official warning and reprimand, or may suspend or revoke a notary's appointment, for official misconduct, for any ground on which an application could be denied, or for any violation of the general statutes. The sanctions escalate with severity:

Due Process Before Discipline

Discipline is not summary. Connecticut applies the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (UAPA), found at CGS Sec. 4-166 through 4-189, so a notary facing serious action is entitled to:

• Notice of the complaint or charges.
• An opportunity to respond and present the notary's side.
• A fair hearing procedure consistent with the UAPA.

This means a notary should preserve records (especially journal entries) that document what actually happened, because those records become the notary's best evidence in a hearing.

Grounds to Deny or Revoke a Commission

The same grounds that justify denying an application can support revocation of an existing commission:

Worked Scenario

A notary stamps a jurat but never administers the oath and leaves the date blank. No one was defrauded, and the notary meant no harm. This is still official misconduct under prong (B) — negligent and improper performance of the act. If a complaint reaches the Secretary of the State, the likely path under Sec. 3-94m is a written warning and reprimand for a first, harmless lapse, escalating toward suspension or revocation if the carelessness is repeated or causes loss. Throughout, the notary is entitled to notice and a chance to respond under the UAPA.

Why Negligence Counts: The Heart of Prong (B)

The feature of Sec. 3-94a that surprises most candidates is that intent is not required. Many people assume that misconduct must mean deliberate wrongdoing, but prong (B) expressly reaches acts performed in a manner found to be negligent. This design reflects what notarization is for: the public relies on the act being done carefully every single time. A notary who is merely sloppy — who skips an ID check, mis-dates a certificate, or fails to administer an oath on a jurat — has failed the public just as surely as one who acted dishonestly, even if the careless notary meant no harm.

The remedy may be lighter for an innocent mistake, but the conduct still qualifies as misconduct.

Think of it as a duty of professional care. When you accept a commission, you accept a standard: do the act correctly, completely, and only when the law's conditions are met. Falling below that standard is the negligence prong, and it is the most common basis for both discipline under Sec. 3-94m and personal liability under Sec. 3-94l.

Prohibited Acts Versus Failures to Act

Prong (A) has two halves that are easy to blur. A prohibited act is doing something the statutes forbid — for example, self-notarizing under Sec. 3-94g or acting to deceive under Sec. 3-94h. A failure to perform a mandated act is the opposite: omitting a duty the statutes require, such as failing to take the oath of office, failing to record the commission with the appropriate office, or failing to administer the oath that a jurat demands. Both halves are misconduct. The exam likes to test whether you can spot that an omission — not just an affirmative wrongful act — is independently disciplinable.

How Discipline Escalates in Practice

The Secretary of the State's sanctions under Sec. 3-94m are not chosen at random; they track severity and pattern. A first, harmless paperwork lapse typically draws a written warning and reprimand. Repeated carelessness, or a single act that causes real harm, pushes toward suspension. Conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, or harm to the public — or a notary who reoffends after warning — invites revocation. This graduated structure rewards notaries who fix their practices after a warning and isolates those who will not.

Because discipline can rest on the manner in which an act was performed, your records are your shield. A complete journal entry showing that the signer appeared, presented valid identification, and was administered the proper oath converts a he-said/she-said complaint into a documented defense. The UAPA process at CGS Sec. 4-166 through 4-189 gives you the forum to present that evidence — but only if you kept it. The lesson runs straight from this section into the next: good records are the difference between a defensible mistake and an indefensible one.