In the field of law the principal problem concerning handwriting is the recognition or identification of samples of handwriting submitted as evidence. In decided contrast to the subjective analyses of graphologists are the objective investigations by examiners of questioned documents. Representative of the experts in the field is Albert S. Osborn who has introduced many techniques and refinements into the study of writing.1 However, there apparently have been only two published reports of experimental studies of the identification of handwriting samples by non-experts. In one of these studies Inbau proposed to test the accuracy of identification of disputed handwriting by lay witnesses, since such a practice is well established in the courts.2 The signatures of each of seven members of the law faculty of Northwestern University were obtained; and a spurious signature (made without any attempt at imitation), a free-hand forgery and a traced forgery were prepared for each signature on cards similar to those on which the genuine signatures had been written. Five groups of "witnesses" were asked to give opinions on the genuineness of the seven sets of cards. Only the first two groups consisting of the seven professors and five secretaries were acquainted with the signatures of the professors whose sample signatures were obtained. The third group was designated as the lay group, the fourth group consisted of seven bank employees whose work brought them in constant contact with signatures, and the fifth group was composed of three expert handwriting examiners. Because these three groups were not acquainted with the signatures of the professors, they identified the names on the basis of their own visual comparisons between the four "questioned" signatures and a set of "standard" (genuine) signatures. The actual testing of each of the seven faculty members and the secretaries was done individually; the cards were viewed one at a time, an opinion as to genuineness obtained, the card removed from view, the next card presented, an opinion obtained, and so on, until the entire series of seven sets of four cards each had been presented and opinions obtained. This procedure simulated courtroom conditions in which juxtaposition comparisons are absent, and only comparisons based upon the subject's recollection of the genuine writing are allowed.