The material in this article is general legal information for educational use only. It should not be treated as legal, financial, or tax advice, and reading it does not form an attorney-client relationship. Legal rules vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Questions about a specific matter belong with a qualified professional. The author and publisher disclaim liability for actions taken in reliance on this content.
Key Facts
- National overview: The SCALL newsletter reproduces ABA House of Delegates “RESOLVED” language approving the Uniform Electronic Legal Material Act (UELMA) under “Resolution 102B.”.
- National overview: The “RESOLVED” clause describes UELMA as promulgated by NCCUSL in 2011.
- National overview: The “RESOLVED” clause frames ABA approval as an “appropriate Act” for states desiring to adopt the substantive law suggested in UELMA.
- State level: The SCALL newsletter reports that the ABA House of Delegates adopted UELMA on Feb. 6, 2012 at the Midyear meeting in New Orleans.
- National overview: The legacy identifier “2012mm102b” links the ABA House action record to the UELMA approval context in the historical excerpt.
- National overview: The verifiable quotations in this recovery article focus on the “RESOLVED” approval language reproduced in the SCALL newsletter rather than any full enacted-law text.
- National overview: The archive record alone does not establish which states enacted UELMA or whether later amendments changed state law.
This archive record and what readers usually misread
The item sometimes referenced as “2012mm102b” appears in a 2012 SCALL newsletter issue as an ABA House of Delegates resolution connected to the Uniform Electronic Legal Material Act (UELMA). In an archive-recovery context, the goal is interpretive: the historical record helps explain how the ABA described UELMA at that time, without treating a policy-style resolution excerpt as automatically binding law.
- This archive record and what readers usually misread
- The resolution’s “RESOLVED” language (the core historical content)
- When and where the ABA House acted, according to the newsletter
- How the excerpt links UELMA to state adoption (and why that matters)
- Compact distinction archive approval language vs. enacted law
- What this archive write up relies on
- What the record does not establish about current law
- Why this historical item mattered for legal information access
- The historical excerpt used in this article
- Sources
A common confusion in legal research is to treat a resolution excerpt like statutory text. The resolution language reproduced in the SCALL newsletter uses approval language and points to potential state adoption rather than spelling out enforceable requirements inside the “RESOLVED” excerpt itself.
For an example of how TheFirstFile documents other historical ABA House actions, see ABA House of Delegates resolution archive example.
The resolution’s “RESOLVED” language (the core historical content)
The SCALL newsletter reproduces “RESOLVED” language tied to the ABA action labeled “Resolution 102B.” The excerpt states that:
- The American Bar Association approves the Uniform Electronic Legal Material Act (UELMA).
- The resolution describes UELMA as “promulgated” by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 2011.
- The resolution frames its approval “as an appropriate Act for those states desiring to adopt the specific substantive law suggested therein.”
These points matter most for interpreting the archive record correctly because they describe what the ABA resolution approved and how it relates to state choices rather than listing operational legal duties inside the excerpt.
When and where the ABA House acted, according to the newsletter
The same SCALL newsletter reports that the ABA House of Delegates adopted UELMA on Feb. 6, 2012 at the Midyear meeting in New Orleans. In archive recovery, that kind of date-and-location context helps distinguish one specific House action from later summaries or unrelated commentary.
How the excerpt links UELMA to state adoption (and why that matters)
The “RESOLVED” language uses state-focused framing, including the phrase “those states desiring to adopt” the “specific substantive law suggested” in UELMA. For modern readers, that wording signals the resolution’s intended relationship to state decision-making.
Stated differently, the archive record functions as a historical policy approval and endorsement for a uniform-law proposal. The excerpt does not present itself as a substitute for enacted state law inside any particular jurisdiction.
Compact distinction archive approval language vs. enacted law
| Reference type in the archive recovery | What it communicates in practical legal research terms |
|---|---|
| ABA House “RESOLVED” excerpt approving UELMA | The historical record communicates that the ABA action approved UELMA and that it addressed states that may want to adopt the suggested substantive law. |
| Enacted uniform-law adoption in a state | Enacted state law is what would supply enforceable rules within that state’s legal system after a state adopts the uniform act’s substantive approach. |
This table keeps the distinction close to the archive excerpt by grounding the first row in the SCALL-reproduced “RESOLVED” language about state desire to adopt, and it separates policy approval from the controlling source that typically follows state enactment.
What this archive write up relies on
This recovery write-up keeps its evidence base tightly tied to the SCALL newsletter reproduction. The verifiable details presented here come from the reproduced resolution approval language (“RESOLVED”) and the newsletter’s reported adoption timing context, rather than from reconstructing UELMA’s operative provisions or any current state enactment status.
What the record does not establish about current law
Even when a historical resolution clearly references a uniform act, the archived excerpt itself does not provide state-by-state enactment status. The “RESOLVED” language describes the resolution’s orientation toward states that “desire to adopt” the suggested substantive law, but it does not name which states enacted UELMA, whether later amendments occurred, or whether any subsequent revisions changed enacted versions.
Similarly, this recovery record does not include the full text of UELMA’s substantive sections. The article therefore stays within the historical approval-language frame rather than moving into “what UELMA requires” territory for today’s practice.
Why this historical item mattered for legal information access
UELMA appears in the archive record under its full name, the “Uniform Electronic Legal Material Act,” and the resolution describes it as a uniform-act proposal promulgated in 2011. The ABA House action in 2012, as reproduced in the SCALL newsletter, treats the proposed uniform act as a candidate framework for states to consider when adopting the “specific substantive law suggested.”
In an archive setting, that orientation matters because it helps explain how national professional-policy materials described UELMA at that time and how they positioned the proposal for possible state adoption.
The historical excerpt used in this article
The quotations and context come from the SCALL Newsletter March/April 2012 (Vol. 39, No. 4) issue that reproduces the “ABA Adopts UELMA” / “Resolution 102B” text. The SCALL PDF is the primary archived source for the approval language and the reported Feb. 6, 2012 midyear meeting timing: SCALL Newsletter March/April 2012 PDF.
