Friday, March 25, 2011

More Alleged Fraud In Florida


In two sworn Affidavits signed by licensed Process Server LIZ MILLS, she states that because she is concerned about her personal integrity and the integrity of her profession, and having therefore reviewed several documents that bear my name and alleged signature. 

“I have never attempted to serve anyone in Lehigh Acres, FL (Lee County) at any time.  I never signed the aforementioned document and the signature appearing on the document is unequivocally not mine.”
“I have also reviewed Returns of Service dated 1/3/09 for Jerry Berman and Heidi Berman.  I never signed the aforementioned documents in front of a Notary Public at any time.  The signatures on the Returns of Service dated 6/17/08 are unequivocally not mine.”

If both sworn statements are in fact true, one could easily conclude that what is alleged is far more than a clerical error on the part of the process serving agencies involved.  
 
To read the content of each Sworn Affidavit, click on each image.  

One can only hope that the truth will be found and if any crimes were committed that the offenders might be brought to justice.  

Posted by Jeff Karotkin

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Florida State Bar Proposes Mandatory eFiling and eService Statewide


The following are a few sections of the proposed rule changes as published in the Florida Bar News on
3-21-11

The Florida Bar rules committees have filed an out-of-cycle report of proposed rule amendments to implement electronic filing of documents with courts. The Court invites all interested persons to comment on the proposed amendments, which are reproduced in full below, as well as online at http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/proposed.shtml.


FLORIDA RULE 2.520. PAPER DOCUMENTS (Strike through text is existing langauge to be deleted by this proposal. Underlined text is new proposed language.)


(a) Type and Size Electronic Filing Mandatory. All pleadings, motions, petitions, briefs, notices, orders, judgments, decrees, opinions, and other papers and official documents filed in any court shall be filed by electronic transmission in accordance with rule 2.525. “Documents” means pleadings, motions, petitions, memoranda, briefs, notices, exhibits, declarations, affidavits, orders, judgments, decrees, writs, opinions, and any other paper or writing submitted to a court.

(c) Documents Affected.

(1) All documents that are court records, as defined in rule 2.430(a)(1), may must be filed by electronic transmission, provided that:

(A) the clerk of court has the ability to accept and retain such documents;

(B) the clerk of court or the chief judge of the circuit has requested permission to accept documents filed by electronic transmission; and

(C) the Ssupreme Ccourt of Florida has entered an order granting permission to the clerk of court to accept documents filed by electronic transmission.

Any attorney, party, or other person who files a document by electronic transmission shall, immediately thereafter, file the identical document, in paper form, with an original signature of the attorney, party, or other person if a signature is otherwise required by these rules (hereinafter called the follow-up filing).


(2) The follow-up filing of any document that has previously been filed by electronic transmission may be discontinued if:


(A) after a 90-day period of accepting electronically filed documents, the clerk of court or the chief judge of the circuit certifies to the Supreme Court of Florida that the electronic filing system is efficient, reliable, and meets the demands of all parties;


(B) the clerk of court or the chief judge of the circuit requests permission to discontinue that portion of the rule requiring a follow-up filing of documents in paper form, except as otherwise required by general law, statute, or court rule; and

(C) the Supreme Court of Florida enters an order directing the clerk of court to discontinue accepting the follow-up filing.

All documents filed by electronic transmission under this rule satisfy any requirement for the filing of an original, except where the court, law, or rule of procedure otherwise provides for the submittal of an original.

If you are a process server in Florida you may be wondering so what does this have to do with me? That depends upon the types of services you are offering your law firm customers. 

  1. If you are providing court filing for a fee to your customers in those counties that are currently enabled for eFiling it likely means that you will no longer have any role in the filing of any court documents.                                                                                 
  2. If you provide court filing as part of your service of process package or bundled price in those counties that are enabled for eFiling it likely means that you will no longer be able to say that the court filing task is part of what justifies your bundled service of process price.   
  3. If you file your certificates of service as part of your service of process bundled price in those courts that are enabled for eFiling it likely means that you will no longer be able to say that the court filing of the certificate is part of what justifies your bundled service of process price.   
  4. If on the other hand you hate dealing with the courts, standing in line to see a clerk and otherwise waiting for documents to be filed in those courts that are enabled for eFiling you are in luck if this proposed rule change is adopted. 
It is also worth noting that the Florida Supreme Court is also considering an amendment to the rules of civil procedure that will mandate electronic service of all court documents subsequent to the initial documents filed in a new action.  

That means that Florida attorneys will no longer be able to use a messenger, courier, overnight provider, fax or U.S. mail to give notice to all parties for all documents subsequent to the initial documents filed in a new action. 

It appears the State Courts of Florida are embarking upon a journey into a Brave New World.


posted by Jeff Karotkin



Thursday, March 17, 2011

Threatening to Shoot a Process Server is a Bad Idea!

GOOD NEWS! After a jury found an Elbert County man guilty of felony menacing, the 59-year-old will face his sentencing in April. George Sumpter was found guilty on Jan. 20 and will be sentenced at 9 a.m. April 18 for threatening to shoot a civil process server.

Source Elbert County News http://coloradocommunitynewspapers.com/articles/2011/03/16/elbert_county_news/news/03_ad_sumpter__ec.txt




posted by Jeff Karotkin

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

First Service of a Summons Via Facebook Approved in Britain!

The attorney found it challenging to get a debtor to attend court to answer questions about their finances.  She was quoted as saying: (click link for full story)

“It is great to see that the courts are willing to embrace new technology.

Being able to use Facebook to do so will certainly assist in the case and allow our client creditor the possibility of obtaining further information to enforce the debt.”

Here we go again. This example is yet another instance where the courts have acknowledged that leveraging social media is as effective, if not more so than other alternate mean of service when a defendant is difficult to serve. By my count that makes six (6) instances internationally where a social media platform was approved to provide notice to a party to a case.


As far as I am aware it has not yet occurred in the U.S. but I suspect it is only matter of time.



If you are interested in other instances where electronic service of process has been approved by the courts please use the search feature on this blog and you will find several posts on the topic.  

For those of you on Facebook, I have created a Facebook business page titled "Service of Process Looking Forward" where you can post information and interact with others interested in addressing the challenges facing the process serving industry. 


Thanks


Jeff Karotkin

Friday, March 11, 2011

Process serving reform calls for renewed transparency, integrity and innovation

By Matt Massa - March 10, 2011

The last few months have been a distressing time for the mortgage service industry, partly due to some inexcusable and unacceptable process serving practices. While it is clear that some process servers have not lived up to the highest possible ethical standards in doing their jobs, the breakdown has been magnified as many process serving companies have washed their hands of indignities and claimed to have no responsibility for their errant, subcontracted process servers’ actions.


Yet where there is distress and disorder, there is opportunity for renewal. Substantive reform not only can correct both real and perceived problems, but also serve as an example for how service providers in diverse industries can better manage their vendor relationships.

Impact on housing economy

Allegations of sloppy and fraudulent practices have ranged from process servers lying about delivering foreclosure notices to homeowners, to legal documents used to seize homes that don’t even identify the lender claiming to hold the mortgage, to “robo-signers” approving documents without carefully reviewing them when foreclosing on homes. Such revelations dating back to late last year have led to a nationwide investigation by state attorneys general. While we don’t know the outcome of those investigations, even simple errors of omission in case detail from the bottom up could expose unhealthy processes to potential litigation, more bad press, and financial repercussions. The bottom line is that unethical practices will cost the industry in terms of reputation, revenues and continued chaos.

After alleged abuses made national headlines, major banks like JPMorgan Chase (JPM: 45.54 -2.19%) and Bank of America (BAC: 14.26 -2.26%) briefly halted their foreclosures to review their internal processes and those used by the law firms they hire. This hold – as well as any future interruptions during the course of ongoing investigations – impacts the daily costs that lenders have in carrying the default loan (lost interest, property maintenance, depreciation or risk, etc.). Operational overhead also adds pressure to the rest of the loan pipeline, including law firms and their vendors. Obviously, stalls in the process make it difficult to maintain economic balance.

When downstream vendors, of which process servers are just one example, cause a negative impact on upstream bottom line, it leads to a general breakdown in trust. The gut reaction is to replace vendors. In cases where a single vendor was used, the instinct is to replace it with several vendors to increase competitive innovation. Unfortunately, this typically requires more time for oversight and leads to greater inefficiency in performance (including learning curves), inconsistent communications and missed assumptions (toward potentially unexpressed expectations), and potentially more errors. Additional management time plus a greater number of vendors and processes naturally lead to increased total costs of sales for each case, therefore driving project overhead up and profit down for all parties involved.

Furthermore, the perception of malfeasance is contagious. When a mutual vendor, or even a client, is caught with their hand in the cookie jar, it is assumed to be a widespread issue. Similarly, when an industry colleague is accused of something, it is feared that all similar companies are engaging in the same behavior – adversely affecting the reputation of an entire industry.


Ensuring quality vendor relationships

Process serving companies – the majority of which are not guilty of malfeasance or responsible for this latest crisis – are wise to first volunteer transparency to help rebuild industry trust. But restoring integrity also must involve putting quantitative processes in place to ensure the RIGHT process serving professionals are hired. In addition, the remedy needs to include implementation of tangible systems to build confidence that those individuals are doing what they are supposed to do, even when no one is directly observing them on the job. Applicable systems and procedures include diligent screening of prospective process servers; implementing industry-standard quality control measures and processes; and ensuring that process servers possess sufficient knowledge about their profession and the proper licensing, as well as uphold personal, company and industry standards.

A quantitative approach to screening for people of character and integrity. If a company does not really, truly know who is handling its files, now is the time to find out. Our industry needs to ensure that only people of integrity who also greatly respect their trade are in the profession of serving documents. The way to do this is by adopting character-based processes for selecting candidates. It is imperative, for example, to ask potential employees and their references about dependability, honesty, thoroughness, discretion, creativity, flexibility and attentiveness. In addition, we must verify candidates’ track records for success, performance and loyalty, even through criminal or other background checks as appropriate.

Greater emphasis on preparing process servers for success. Ensuring success on the job starts with clearly establishing and communicating the standards, ethics and compliant conduct that define the profession. Next, it is vital to ensure, capture and leverage professional knowledge and experience through enhanced training. This involves proper use of technology, but also adherence to process serving laws, civil procedure codes, court-specific interpretations and requirements, shared best practices and standard operating procedures, as well as client-specific expectations.

To achieve unequivocal excellence and efficiency, without competitive bias, it is imperative that our industry adopt a universal certification/approval program for independent, professional process servers. The better trained and educated servers are, and the more standardized the material and knowledge, the less likely servers will stray from the standards of practice. Pay-for-perfection compensation systems also are a proven tool for helping workers stay invested in their work.

Implementing integrated, industry-standard quality control. At the bare minimum, process servers are supposed to make sure that the processes they follow are legitimate and executed in a manner according to set laws and regulations. But without proper checks and balances and quality control, the opportunities for cutting corners are magnified. Important to an overall strategy of restoring integrity to our industry is the use of technology that can help deter potential abuses. Readily available and proven tools include GPS, systematic flagging of multiple jobs at different addresses, suspicious time stamping protocols, and time tracking against distance projections. Process serving companies also should give 24-hour, unrestrained access to client files and real-time updates, as well as proactively invite client audits. Such tools and practices help to build much needed transparency into the process.

Using innovation to create a modern process serving environment. It’s time to reinvent the yardstick. Measuring process server success strictly on speed of service and completeness is outdated and irrelevant. Instead, law firms and their servicers should look for vendors dedicated to change and progression, as well as strive to bring diverse vendors together to help innovate and streamline processes. These forward-thinking companies are committed to creating lean environments including process improvement and innovation, continuously building better and more economic ways of getting the job done on target. Routinely matching – and sometimes surpassing – time and completeness goals is a byproduct of lean and efficient process execution. However, the real value of these progressive vendors is found in the little innovations – often aberrations – that improve the daily life of a case. These small enhancements ultimately provide economic efficiencies on total case costs, giving lift to firm/servicer profitability.

Our industry has surely suffered in the short term due to some callous mistakes by process serving agents who fall short of the high standards of professionalism and ethics that most of us in the industry continue to uphold. Now we must move forward by making tangible changes in how we hire, educate and train professionals who perform this critical function. We need a more enlightened climate of collaboration, transparency and integrity, as well as a renewed commitment to innovation. Those companies that resist the transition will be left behind and may risk keeping our entire industry under a cloud of suspicion filled with the sins of the past.

Matt Massa is the national operations director of Firefly Legal, a leading associate legal services company that specializes in process serving, traces and searches, face-to-face services, and court filing. With offices nationwide, the company partners with its clients to find solutions that are guided by collaboration, innovation and integrity.
 
Posted By Jeff Karotkin

Thursday, March 10, 2011

NATIONAL PROCESS SERVERS ASSOCIATION LAUDS N.Y. DECISION

“The National Association of Professional Process Servers (NAPPS) wishes to extend its congratulations to the New York State Professional Process Servers Association (NYSPPSA) in its agreement with the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs to a 30-day extension before implementing the newly adopted process server rules and law for New York."
“NYSPPSA worked closely with the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs in coming to this agreement and we are pleased that the Department has also agreed to continue negotiations as both sides have a shared goal in providing quality services to the legal system and ultimately justice for those who engage that system."


Posted by Jeff Karotkin

Monday, March 7, 2011

Service of Process by Publishing Documents to a Public Website

Another creative way to Serve foreign defendants.

On February 24, 2010, Microsoft provided notice and service of the Complaint, Summons and related materials in English and Chinese through the publicly available website http://bit.ly/fZ5y4w (www.noticeofpleadings.com) Microsoft has updated the website throughout this case.


The Court’s orders and notice regarding this action have also been widely reported in international media publications, including news media in China. (D.I. 32-2 at ¶¶ 15-22.) The reporting and publication of this action in China and throughout the world has been continuous. (Ramsey Decl, Ex. 11 (filed herewith).)

Posted by Jeff Karotkin

How to Serve Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda

Plaintiffs have sued two classes of defendants. The first class is the foreign State defendants, Iran, and Iraq. The second class consists of individual terrorists and terrorist organizations including Osama Bin Laden, al Qaeda, and the Taliban, a/k/a the former Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.

As to both classes, if plaintiffs know the specific address of a particular defendant, service will be made by conventional means pursuant to Fed.R. Civ. P. 4. As to foreign states, their agencies and instrumentalities, service will be effectuated pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(j) and 28 U.S.C. § 1608. However, a number of the named defendants cannot be located. Therefore, alternative methods to effectuate service of process upon these defendants, as set forth on “Exhibit A”, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(f)(3), are fully warranted.

See full motion and order here.

Posted by Jeff Karotkin

Tuesday, March 1, 2011

Electronic Delivery System for Subpoenas - A Case Study

The City of Inglewood and the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office wanted to implement an automated electronic delivery system for Police Department subpoenas. The electronic delivery system needed to constitute legal service of the subpoena.

Implementation of an “Electronic Delivery System” to deliver subpoena data was needed to provide timely and efficient service to police officers who work a variety of shifts and create an audit trail for delivery and receipt of the subpoena. It was crucial to create a system that provided: confirmed identification of relevant parties, uniform search criteria and scalability to serve multiple cities Police and City Attorney Departments in the future, The system needed to be web-based solution for ease of administration and end user access via web browser for the Police Officer served with the subpoena, provide real time notification, monitoring of all Subpoena activities and easy to use reports for management.


This is yet another example of the landscape changing in way we didn't expect just a few short years ago. I have heard several process servers say... At least this does not affect us. Really in jurisdictions all over the country this same thing is happening and process servers are being displaced, the act of service of process physically is replaced with systems that offer tremendous efficiencies to all the agencies involved. To suggest otherwise is naive.

I am not saying this is a good thing or a bad thing, I am simply pointing out that it is happening and we process servers need to be informed so we can make intelligent decisions about what it means to each of our businesses moving forward.

A copy of the case study can be found here.


Posted by Jeff Karotkin