Electronic Service of Process - Long Overdue Disucssion!

For some time now I have been writing on my Blog and on my facebook group SOPLF about Electronic Service and the challenges facing the industry, so much so, that I have made some in the process serving profession uncomfortable. A small group of individuals would rather I not provide my thoughts on these topics. A few have even seen fit criticize my motives for doing so on the social media platforms and list-serves. They have every right to do so. I just wish they were willing to encourage folks to think for themselves rather than discouraging a robust discussion of the issues facing the industry.

 

CALSPro gets it!  CALSPro is encouraging all in the industry to attend the California Association of Legal Support Professionals (CALSPro) annual conference later this month in Lake Tahoe, NV. Almost the entire conference is geared toward a robust and thoughtful discussion about the threats and opportunities facing the industry. 

 

Why would anyone want to discourage a discussion and exchange of ideas on what is arguably an important issue facing the private process serving industry? These folks believe that the threat of Electronic Service is "much a do about nothing".  Too bad most in the national leadership don't appear to get it. The only time they did was when I was involved and I did all the heavy lifting.  But I digress. 

 

Maybe they just don't like that someone other than themselves is expressing their views.   In my opinion that kind of attitude is irresponsible especially for those that might be in a position of authority for the private process serving profession. 

If nothing else I have gotten their attention and hopefully they are starting to acknowledge that we as a industry need to start paying more attention to electronic service of process and other challenges.  My intent all along has been to raise awareness so that the those in the industry  start to formulate strategies to help insure a path forward.

I will continue to seek out information about this and other challenges facing the industry so that process servers everywhere can make up their own minds and will hopefully be more informed.

 

The commentary and opinions expressed here are mine alone and not that of CALSPro or any other group or organization.

 

by Jeff Karotkin

 

Service of Process via Social Media - Threat or Opportunity?

An Australian appellate court recently ruled that rapper Flo Rida could not be served via Facebook in a breach of contract lawsuit. Reversing a lower court's decision, the court ruled the social media site was not an appropriate means to serve notice.

This is the second such similar ruling coming out of the Federal court in the last few months.
 

Those that have followed this Blog for the last few years know I have opined about Service of Process via electronic means and service via social media in particular. Though I firmly believe that the service of process as we know it is rapidly approaching a tipping point where the legal community is going to embrace service by electronic means, I am also firmly in the camp that believes that service via social media should only be employed as a last resort.

The fact is service via social media is totally unreliable as a primary manner of service.  Let me explain… Unless the intended recipient formally acknowledges receipt there is no way to ensure that they received the service if a message were posted to their social media account.  What’s worse is service via social media really only gives the intended recipient an opportunity to know that they have been sued or “notice” that they have been sued/served.  Unless the service documents like a Summons and Complaint are posted intact on the recipient’s social media page or inbox, the recipient is not receiving the actual documents.  I would argue that it is the actual documents with the courts stamp and/or seal that must be provided to the recipient for the service to be lawful.  Service via social media is in my opinion no better than service by publication and is at best problematic.  I would hope that the Courts continue to only consider this manner of service after all other efforts have been exhausted. 

That said, I can envision a better more reliable, trusted and secure method of electronic service that embraces a basic tenant of providing notice and giving a party their due process… the manner of service whether physical or electronic MUST be reasonably calculated to provide ACTUAL notice.
 

I can envision service by electronic means that embraces that concept and also ensures that it is performed by a person or entity that is a disinterested third party that can attest to the facts surrounding the ACTUAL service event.  This electronic version of a disinterested third party would be responsible for the same role as a physical process server; they would ensure the proper person or entity received the service documents and that they knew what they received and that there was a verifiable audit trail that would hold up in court.  The electronic process server would also provide their client/customer with a proof, affidavit or certificate of service that documented the service event.  That document could also be provided to the courts as formal proof that the service event was performed lawfully. 

This topic has been discussed and debated by process servers, registered agents, attorneys and technologist for more than 10 years.   Someone or some entity will bring this vision to life and it will have a lasting impact on the industry.  Make no mistake it is only a matter of time, the first steps have been documented on my blog.  Here is one example of what is  already happening.  The only question I have is will process servers be a part of that evolution or not…

For more about my thoughts or vision related to this topic “Service of Process in the 21^st Century” click here.

 by Jeff Karotkin

 

New York City is Not Kind to the Process Serving Industry!

NYC Process Servers - Regulations Run-Amok?

"As of September 2011 there were 1,760 licensed individual process servers in NYC. There are currently 967; of those, 269 are newly licensed (within the past year or two). That means 1,062 process servers gave up their licenses”.  That’s a little more than 60%!"

Some have argued that this is a success story.  But for the efforts and $ of NYSPPSA and NAPPS the number of out of business process servers and process serving agencies would be a lot higher.   If this is model of a successful effort by a NAPPS and NYSPPSA I would hate to see a failure. 

All kidding aside, this is a tragedy that was addressed by some smart well-meaning folks.  Unfortunately, the combination of a few large agencies that did commit sewer service and an environment where the DCA regulates anything that moves was too much to overcome.  It is likely that no amount of money would have made a difference. 

You can find copies of charges issued to process servers in NYC and settlements here.  Scary list of charges and settlements... Name a process server in NYC or an Agency they are probably on the DCA's list. 

by jeff karotkin

FEWER FEDERAL SUBPEONAS - COMING SOON?

FEWER FEDERAL SUBPEONAS - COMING SOON?

 

A few days ago I posted to this group a message about the proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I specifically cited a proposed change to Rule 4 that would reduce the number of days to effect service from 120 to 60 days. This change probably does not have an adverse impact upon the process serving industry.

The published proposals also include changes to the Federal discovery rules, that if passed could have a tremendous impact on the timing of civil discovery and could severely limit the amount of discovery that will allowed in a Federal case. Proposed amendments to Rules 30 and 31 reduce the number of depositions from 10 to 5 and the time limit for each deposition from seven hours to six hours. Rule 33 would be revised to lower the number of interrogatories from 25 to 15. Parties would still be able to seek leave of court to exceed these limits.

by Jeff Karotkin

 

Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - Rule 4 Summons

Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Here is yet another example that if you want the most current, relevant and actionable information available related to the process serving industry you should follow my blog and Facebook group... To be fair CALSPro and ServeNow are also excellent resources for information.

Please visit the link provided to see the Proposed Civil and Bankruptcy Rule Changes.  Federal Rule 4 Summons is among those that may be changed.  Specifically section (m) Time Limit for Service. The proposed change would reduce the time allowed to serve the Summons from 120 days to 60 days.   This change, together with the shortened times for issuing a scheduling order set by amended Rule 16(b)(2), will reduce delay at the beginning of litigation.

On August 15, 2013, the public comment period opens for the proposed amendments to Civil Rules 1, 4, 6, 16, 26, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 55, 84, and Appendix of Forms. The public comment period closes on February 15, 2014.

If you are inclined to comment you can do so here.

http://www.uscourts.gov/RulesAndPolicies/rules/proposed-amendments.aspx

by: Jeff H. Karotkin

Service of Process on Foreign Manufactures - To be performed in USA if Bill passes

Legislative Update -SERVICE OF PROCESS ON FOREIGN MANUFACTURERS

Current law allows foreign companies selling defective products in the United States to dodge service of process, and they do. When a foreign company does that, it puts all of the burden on American retailers to account for any harm that is caused because of the defective product. That is not fair to American companies, and it's not fair to American citizens.

This bill streamlines service rules so foreign companies selling products here in America can be served with process here in America.

This is at least the 3rd separate session of Congress that a Bill like this has been introduced.  If this Bill were to pass as currently drafted it might create a huge increase in service of process domestically.  United State House Bill 1910 of the 213th Congress seeks to fix what some think is an unfair and broken system. Click link for a summary and text of the Bill  http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:h.r.01910:

by SOPLF - Jeff Karotkin

NY Federal Class Action Lawsuit Alleges Racketeering & Sewer Service Filed May 1, 2013

Earlier this month a nationally recognized law firm Hughes, Hubbard & Reed LLP filed a Federal Class Action law suit alleging FDCPA violations and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) against debt collectors and their law firm. 

The Complaint alleges the defendants were engaged in a scheme involving improper litigation activities and the hiring of process serving agencies engaged in Sewer Service.  

The complaint mentions the names of the individuals process servers and agencies it alleges were part of the scheme. 

For example, some of the affidavits of service falsely attested that the process server effected "personal service" on the defendant at an address where that person did not live at that time, or never lived.

Other affidavits of service attested that the process server served the defendant at an accurate address but by " substitute service" on a fictitious person, such as a non-existent relative.

Other affidavits of service reported that the process server effected "nail and mail" service on an address where the defendant never lived.

On information and belief, Defendants knew that the affidavits of service were highly likely to be false.

On information and belief, Defendants knew that the vast majority of affidavits of
service supporting Defendants' applications for default judgment were fraudulent.

This case like the one filed in CA earlier this month could have a lasting impact upon the both the debt collection industry and the process serving industry.  Though there have been Sewer Service allegations for decades it was the American Legal Process case filed by the NY Attorney General that resulted in the far reaching regulations that currently face the NYC process serving industry.

Do an associations Bylaws matter? Do Robert's Rules of Order matter?

I for one think they do. 

The Bylaws are the constitution. They represent the framework for all affairs of the organization.  They help guide and govern an organization or association.  Bottom-line they are part of the glue that holds everything together.  Typically associations recognize Robert's Rules of Order to as the parliamentary authority that set forth the rules not specifically addressed in the Bylaws and are considered legally binding by associations that have adopted them.  NAPPS has a formal set of Bylaws and has adopted Robert's Rules. 

Yet for some reason NAPPS appears to have ignored its Bylaws and Robert's Rules when it comes to its last annual conference.  Either the folks running the association choose to violate the Bylaws or they just don't understand them.  At the end of the day it doesn't matter if they choose to ignore them or if the leaders are ignorant.  What matters is they (the bylaws and Robert’s Rules) MUST be complied with.  

I am referring to the election of Mr. Couch to the board of Directors.  There is no dispute as to his eligibility according to the associations Bylaws.  It has been acknowledged by all that have looked into the matter that he was not eligible.  I am told that the leadership or NAPPS sought a parliamentary ruling after the breach of the Bylaws was realized. 

It would appear based on the fact that Mr. Couch is still listed as a board member that whomever advised NAPPS may have told NAPPS that the timeliness to raise a Point of Order had passed.  If that was the advice they leaders received I submit they got bad advice.  If you refer to Roberts Rules and read the timeliness requirements for a Point of Order it says that a Point of Order must be raised promptly at the time the breach occurs. However this same section of Robert's goes on to list exceptions to this requirement.  The exception that I believe applies is as follows. See Page 251 of Robert's 11th Edition:

"The only exceptions to the rule that a point of order must be made at the time of the breach arise in connection with breaches that are of a continuing nature, in which case a point of order can be made at any time during the continuance of the breach. Instances of this kind occur when:

a) a main motion has been adopted that conflicts with the bylaws (constitution) of the organization or assembly" 

 A beach occurred, it continues to occur and in fact the breach conflicts with the Bylaws. 

In further support of this breach needing to be addressed by the members, I have also reviewed the section of Robert's that governs elections; specifically the rules for contesting the announced result of an election.  They allow an election to be contested by raising a point of order.  And as stated previously that point of order must be timely except where the breach conflicts with the Bylaws and where the breach continues.  Page 444 and 445 of Robert's specifically address when a point of order contesting an election can be raised.  On page 445 is says:

"Other exceptions to the general timeliness requirement are those that come with the five categories listed on page 251, lines 9-23, in which cases a point of order can be made at any time during the continuance in office of the individual declared elected.  For example:

If an individual does not meet the qualifications for the post established by the bylaw, his or her election is tantamount to the adoption of a main motion that conflicts with the bylaws."

In order to fix this breach a member must raise a point of order contesting the election.  It is the correct and lawful thing to do in order to address the breach of the Bylaws.   I have no axe to grind with Mr. Couch; I have heard nothing but good things about the man. This isn't really about him; it is about following the rules and doing the right thing.

I suspect a simple mistake was made when it was assumed by all members present that Mr. Couch was eligible to hold office.  Now is the time for a simple solution to be applied. 

This issue is ultimately about credibility.  If NAPPS continues to ignore this issue it will represent another black eye for an industry whose image in the media of late has been less than perfect.  Or NAPPS can continue to play the game like Calvin and Hobs.  Seriously... you either have rules that matter or no rules at all!

 

by Jeff Karotkin

CA Attorney General Sues Chase Over Debt Collection Practices

Last week the California Attorney General Kamala Harris sued Chase bank over its alleged consumer debt collection practices, robo-signing as well as allegations of systemic Sewer Service performed by the bank process servers. 

The Complaint alleges debt collection abuses against tens of thousands of California residents. 
 

"Defendants have flooded California’s courts with collection lawsuits against defaulted credit card borrowers based on patently insufficient evidence—betting that borrowers would lack the resources or legal sophistication to call Defendants’ bluff."

The Complaint also alleges that the Defendants do not properly serve consumers with the summons and complaint, despite filing proofs of service that declare under penalty of perjury that service was complete.

For example, Defendants, through their agents for service of process, falsely state in proofs of service that the consumer was personally served, when, in fact, he or she was not served at all—a practice known as “sewer service.”

This Complaint is similar to the Sewer Service allegations and Attorney General action in New York a few years ago that resulted in the arrest of the owner of a process serving agency and a severe crack-down and regulations placed on the process server community in that state.  It is estimated that many hundreds of process servers and process serving agencies in NYC ultimately went out of business because of the strict regulations that followed that scandal.

At this point it is impossible to say what the fallout will be in California and if the effects will be felt elsewhere in the collection and process serving industry.

What can or should the process serving industry leaders do to address these challenges?  I for one am not sure what the if anything CALSPro should do.  Let's face it there are already laws on the books making the some of the alleged actions of the process server illegal.  I could see stricter penalties being imposed for those who truly commit sewer service.

Whatever is decided by industry leaders they will need to make sure that they are credible, professional and committed to addressing the challenges facing the industry.  No amount of money and lobbying will help produce a solution that is reasonable if your industry leaders are not up to the task.  One would hope that the CA process servers would learn from counterparts in NY what works and what doesn't work...
by Jeff Karotkin

Does JJL Process take a shot at NAPPS?

Like them or not once again JJL Process is taking the lead when it comes to controlling the narrative for large volume consumer debt collection service of process.   JJL bills themselves as an industry leader and "the future of process serving"

If you recall they have been active attempting to establish industry standards for this segment of the process serving market.  NAPPS leaders had an opportunity to participate but chose to thumb their nose at the standard summit.   This quote is attributed to then NAPPS president by JJL “the collection industry has its own problems let them drive their own bus.” 

It would appear that the choice to stay away from the standards summit had everything to do with distancing NAPPS from JJL whom NAPPS appears to think is damaged goods.  Don't get me wrong I am not a fan of JJL but I do respect their efforts to take the lead and put their money where their mouth is.  It would be nice if NAPPS did the same. 

Here is the piece JJL recently wrote for InsideArm and collection industry online newsletter that is widely read by consumer debt collectors.   

"The goal of the Summit was to have a fully transparent and inclusive process of reviewing, revising and finalizing the advisory board’s draft document. Creditors, debt buyers, legal networks, collection law firms, compliance attorneys, process servers, trade associations and even a county judge participated in the Process Serving Standards Summit held in mid-2012 in Denver. The two-day Summit made numerous and significant revisions to the draft standards and each individual standard was democratically voted on by the participating organizations. In the spirit of inclusion, the Summit participants overwhelmingly directed that the standards be publicized in a comment period allowing for further revisions. Comments were received and several more revisions made to the standards by the advisory board."

PROPOSED SERVICE OF PROCESS VIA SOCIAL MEDIA LEGISLATION

           SIMMONS & FLETCHER DISCUSSES THE PROPOSED SERVICE OF PROCESS

Paul H. Cannon, of Simmons & Fletcher, is always watchful for trends that may affect his clients, and he has become aware of a new bill in Texas that could allow social media sites as a means of service for legal process.
"Representative Jeff Leach has introduced House Bill 1989 that could allow the state or a plaintiff to serve a defendant notice of a lawsuit on Facebook, Twitter, and others sites, and have it be legally binding," Cannon said.

"The very purpose of our system requiring person al service is to ensure that the individual has notice of the claims being brought against them, so they are not deprived of property or rights without due process," Cannon added. "While the language of the bill attempts to safeguard this by placing a burden upon the person seeking service to prove that the page belongs to, and is used by the defendant, the reality is that one cannot truly prove this without bringing the page owner into court-in which case, you could serve them in person."

For the rest of the Simmons & Fletcher article click here. 

For the full language of the proposed bill, click here.

Texas Bill Would Allow Service of Process via Facebook

On February 27, 2013, a Bill was introduced in the Texas legislature that relates to substituted service of Citation through a social media website.  House Bill 1989 would essentially formalize a process by which lawyers could petition the court to prescribe an alternative method of service under specific circumstances. 

As currently written in order for a Judge/Court to prescribe service via a social media website they would have to find that four conditions had been met.  The are as follows:

(1)  the defendant maintains a social media page on that website;
(2)  the profile on the social media page is the profile of the defendant;
(3)  the defendant regularly accesses the social media page account; and
(4)  the defendant could reasonably be expected to receive actual notice if the electronic communication were sent to the defendant's account.
(b)  Notwithstanding Section 22.004, Government Code, the supreme court may not amend or adopt rules in conflict with this section.

The Bill is currently referred to the Judicial and Civil Jurisprudence Committee.  If the Bill is approved by the legislature and ultimately signed by the governor it would take effect September 1, 2013. 

Some might argue that this represents a significant step that could have an impact upon the private process serving industry.  Others may not think it is a big deal.  I suspect this Bill was introduced to provide the courts and attorneys with clear guidance for prescribing alternative methods of service while also acknowledging that electronic communications and social media platforms have become so prevalent that they can and should be leveraged to provide legal notice to parties that are either evading service opf process or just can't be served physically by any other approved method. 

Texas would not be the first state legislature that formally adopt rules that specifically allow service via social media like twitter, facebook, text or email.  The Utah courts have specifically allowed this method of service for a few years.  The Utah State Courts website even offers a form Proof of Service that allows a user to check an appropriate box describing the manner in which the petitioner electronically communicated with the intended recipient.

Austin CBS TV Station ran the story and interviewed a few Constables. see video here http://www.keyetv.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/texas-bill-would-allow-serving-subpoenas-through-social-media-7193.shtml
by Jeff Karotkin 3-7-13

 

 

 

2013 Process Server Related Proposed Legislation

2013 Process Server Related Proposed Legislation

Bill Summaries and Links*

 

 

 

Arizona

http://legiscan.com/AZ/text/SB1054 - Recently Introduced Arizona Bill appears to allow AZ Certified Process Servers access to DMV records in certain circumstances

 

http://legiscan.com/AZ/text/SB1055 - Recently Introduced Arizona Bill appears to allow process servers unannounced access to gated communities

Georgia

 http://legiscan.com/GA/bill/SB113 - Georgia Bill would amend certain provisions relating to personal service of a summons on a corporation; to provide for related matters; to repeal conflicting laws

 

Hawaii

http://legiscan.com/HI/bill/SB1015 - Recently Introduced Hawaii Bill SB 1015- The purpose and intent of this measure is to clarify the reciprocity provision under existing law that allows the service of process issued by another state upon a Hawaii recipient.

 

http://openstates.org/hi/bills/2013%20Regular%20Session/SB1182/documents/HID00050152/ -

This Hawaii Bill SB 1182 would make clear who can serve Writs and includes language that allow "or other person authorized by the court" which as I read the bill would mean private process servers. Problem is it is my understanding that the courts ...in Hawaii have not formally defined how a court authorizes private process servers. See Bill SB1182 for the solution to the problem.

 

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2013/bills/SB1182_SD1_.pdf -

Very Interesting Bill in Hawaii Bill SB 1182 - I wonder is Process Servers in Hawaii know...

The legislature finds that process servers play an important role in facilitating a timely judicial process and protecting public safety. Civil process servers... in Hawaii are not required to obtain a license.

In light of ongoing concerns regarding service of process, the legislature finds that the department of public safety should more clearly define and delineate the duties and responsibilities of process servers under its jurisdiction and examine ways of certifying and registering its process servers.

The purpose of this Act is to require the department of public safety to convene a working group to clarify the duties and responsibilities of process servers under the department's jurisdiction, create a process of registration and certification of process servers, and address other relevant issues.

Illinois

http://legiscan.com/IL/bill/SB1724 - Illinois Bill SB1724 Amends the Code of Civil Procedure. Provides that if a person, corporation, or agent or officer of a corporation uses a post office box as a principal mailing address, service of process may be effectuated by having the person serving the process mail a copy of the process via both regular and certified mail.

 

Kansas

http://legiscan.com/KS/bill/HB2116 - Here is a recently introduced House Bill 2116 in Kansas that would make me nervous if I were a Process Server there... This bill appears to allow electronic service of civil process in certain circumstances... Someone correct me if I am wrong but I think Kansas already allows various forms of Electronic Service for Garnishments. Here is the interesting language:

"When a case is electronically filed and process is to be served under this subsection, the chief judge of each judicial district shall determine the procedure for service of process through an agreement with a local enforcement agency."

 

Maryland

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2013RS/fnotes/bil_0002/hb0192.pdf -

Maryland House Bill 192 - Service of Process Bill would Increase Sheriff's Fees

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2013RS/bills/sb/sb0554F.pdf - Maryland Bill SB 0554F Private Process Service – Licensing and Certification

 

Massachusetts

 http://legiscan.com/MA/text/S1129 - Recently Introduced Bill S1129 in Massachusetts would reform civil process operations for Sheriffs.

 

Mississippi

http://legiscan.com/MS/bill/HB233 - Mississippi Bill HB 233 would allow Sheriffs to charge reasonable expenses to serve process... Not to Exceed $45.00

 

Montana

http://legiscan.com/MT/text/SB331 - Recently Introduced Montana Bill SB 331would allow process servers limited access to private property to execute service of process.

 

New Hampshire

http://nhliberty.org/bills/view/2013/SB139 - Recently Introduced Bill SB 139 in New Hampshire appears to raise Sheriffs Fees to Serve Process

 

http://www.nhliberty.org/bills/view/2013/HB596 - Another Bill HB 596 in New Hampshire would eliminate Service by Leaving the Documents at the subjects abode (sub-service). In the alternative the documents wound be mailed by certified mail.

I wonder if New Hampshire Process Servers know about it.

 

New York

http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/A633-2013?goback=.nmp_%2A1_%2A1_%2A1_%2A1_%2A1_%2A1_%2A1_%2A1_%2A1.gmp_1447297.gde_1447297_member_214905217 – New York Bill A-663 AN ACT to amend the general business law and the civil practice law and rules, in relation to process servers. This one would regulate process servers throughout the state.

Oklahoma

 http://legiscan.com/OK/bill/HB1084 - Oklahoma Bill HB 1084 would place a few new requirements upon individuals applying to be private process servers

 

http://legiscan.com/OK/bill/HB2207 - Oklahoma Bill HB 2207 would allow service by publication to be posted to a court controlled website.

 

Texas

http://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB233/id/670596 - Texas Bill HB 233 - A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT - relating to the creation of the offense of obstruction of or retaliation against a process server.

 

http://legiscan.com/TX/bill/HB532 - Texas Bill HB 532 - relating to the creation of the offense of obstruction of or retaliation against a process server.

 

http://www.texasprocesswatch.com/files/HB1391.pdf - Texas Bill HB 1391 -Recently introduced Bill in Texas - H.B.1391 appears to simplify the rules that govern who can serve process. Those making money from the required certification programs and that sit of the PSRB are probably not going to support it.

 

Utah

http://le.utah.gov/~2013/bills/hbillint/hb0235.pdf - Recently Introduced Bill HB 0235 in Utah prohibits a sex offender or a person with a current protective order from serving process issued by a court. Makes me wonder if any other felons can serve process in Utah...

 

Virginia

http://legiscan.com/VA/bill/SB895 - Virginia Bill SB 895 recently Defeated would have allowed Service on a agents for service of process by posting on the agents door.

 

http://legiscan.com/VA/text/HB1754/id/679118-

Virginia HOUSE BILL NO. 1754 would reduce the number of days allowed for Service of Process after the commencement of a new action. Currently twelve months are allowed. This Bill would reduce it to 90 days.

Washington

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2013-14/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/House/1131%20HBA%20PS%2013.pdf – Washington Bill Recently Introduced State HB 1131 Brief Description: Makes assault of a legal process server an Assault in the third degree offense.

Service of process in an action ...or suit within 90 days of commencement of the action or suit against a defendant shall be timely as to that defendant. Service of process on a defendant more 90 days after the suit or action was commenced shall be timely upon a finding by the court that the plaintiff exercised due diligence to have timely service made on the defendant.

 

*This list was compilled by SOPLF and is not meant to represent a complete listing of all legislative activity.  It is just a resource you can refer to as you perform your own research.

 

Process Serving In A Digital Age

Process Serving In A Digital Age - By SOPLF Contributor Tiffany Olson

The legal guidelines for process serving have always been questionable at best. With the absence of federal laws concerning the industry, the entire legal scope of process serving has been left to the states. And while some states have done a better job than others in offering easily discernible rules for serving process, overall, the lack of uniformity among the states has created numerous gray areas at best and a complete jumble at worse. For professional servers, it can be extremely difficult to avoid legal trouble while simultaneously delivering an effective, efficient service.

The digital age has not made this any easier. How do you effectively serve a website like FaceBook or Google? What are the guidelines for serving online entities with no declared physical counterparts? The evolution of technology stretches the already variable rules and creates brand new gray areas to be considered.

But there are also many advantages to this new technology. One particular advantage of note is the use of skiptrace software. Skiptrace software is a set of programs designed to track down a given individual’s current whereabouts. In the process serving community, favorite software and programs include Facebook, Google, IRB, Accurint, Merlin, TLO, Tracers, and Skipmax. Each of these programs has it’s own strengths and weaknesses, but combining the use of two or three in your repertoire will typically be enough to track down your target.

While skip trace software allows servers to locate their targets, the question of the future is whether or not they can be used as an exclusive tool to actually make the serve. In the UK, for now, it would seem the answer is “Yes.” In December of 2012, lawyers in the UK were granted permission to serve a legal suit via Facebook. After more traditionally avenues of serving proved fruitless during a commercial dispute, Justice Nigel Teare gave the green light for a successful serve via the social media giant. This decision could, of course be appealed and overthrown, but for the moment, it seems we have entered a new dimension entirely.

Another major development corresponding with the rise of e-service is the cutting of local government duties, namely those pertaining to civil process. In many small to mid-size towns around the country, sheriff’s offices are getting rid of their entire civil process departments, opening up significantly more available clients to serving companies. Many legal departments are focusing on reducing crime in the face of lowered budgets, resulting in the privatization of more civil duties that have traditionally been performed by local government.

Advanced online databases and search engine optimization are helping serving companies to find and be found by a new host of clients. As the idea of e-service comes into its own, an increasing amount of the industry will be conducted online. The potential exists even now for 100% of the process to be performed remotely, although it will be some time before this becomes common place or even commonly feasible. The digital age has been upon us for some time, and the rules will only continue to change.

About the Author
Tiffany Olson lives in beautiful Northern California. By day she blogs for several small fledgling companies including AccurateDocumentImaging.com who specialize in court research, court filing, Red Bluff process serving, onsite medical copying.

Five Questions All Process Servers Should Be Asking Themselves

Five Questions All Process Servers Should Be Asking Themselves.

 

1.      Are you prepared for the next five years?

 

Being prepared for the next five years would require you to have specific goals and objective in mind and then to develop and execute on a road map that will assist you in accomplishing your goals. 

 

2.      Is it likely that the industry will face more government rules and regulations as the result of Sewer Service issues, the Robo-signing scandal and increased scrutiny form the FTC and CFPB? 

 

If you think it is likely what are you doing to position your business to be able to address the increased compliance requirements that will be thrust upon the industry? If you don't think it is likely then I would submit you are not paying attention.  There are bills pending in New York and Maryland right now that could have dramatic impacts on the industry. 

 

3.      Is the role of a Process Server more routine and repetitious than it was five years ago?

 

The reason this question is important is, as you look at industries that have under gone massive change in the last few years you will see a common theme…  Those that were the most routine and repetitions in nature were the most likely to have been disrupted and changed forever.  I would suggest that there are functions that process servers perform that could arguably fall into that routine and repetitious definition.  Service of Registered Agents is a good example of one of the areas where I suspect massive change is going to happen.  What other parts of your business model are being challenged?

 

4.      Is the image of process servers in the eyes of the Courts and our customers better today than they were five years ago?

 

I would submit the answer is no.  Google “Process Server Fraud” the unflattering results are too numerous to list here.  Given the recent rash of bad news in the industry, perhaps the better question is what are you doing about it?  How are you differentiating yourself and your business so as not to be associated with the element?  It is everywhere…  If the Courts and your customers have cause to question the integrity of industry we are all in trouble.

 

5.      Has the advance of technology implemented by the Courts and your customers in the last five years had an impact on your business?

 

You bet! In a big way and impact of those changes have been felt by many in the industry.  In several jurisdictions around the United States court runners who have long been a part of running most process serving agencies are being replaced at an alarming rate by electronic court filing.  Another example is AT&T is encouraging law firms to send them their Subpoena’s electronically.

 
I would submit that most in the process serving industry do not take the time to explore questions like these let alone think about and plan for what the next five years might have in store for the industry.  I contend that if you think the last five years have been a challenge then the next five will present a much larger challenge for the process serving industry. If the industry and your individual process serving company does not have a plan and is not prepared to confront challenges, then it is in my opinion eroding and dying a slow death.
 
My intent is not to be the bearer of bad news or doom and gloom but rather to encourage those that plan on being in this industry for the long haul to start thinking outside the box. The march of technology and evolution waits for no man or industry. It is up to you to reinvent yourself and your business or you will be left behind.
 
The evidence of the shift that is happening is everywhere in some cases the shift is gradually so gradual in fact that most don’t even see it.  While other shifts are so massive and disruptive that you almost have no time to prepare let alone react.
 
Here are a few examples of the shift I am talking about that are relevant to or are directly related to the process serving industry:
 
Electronic Notaries

State of Virginia Leading the way of Electronic Notaries - The challenge facing the global move toward electronic notarization is establishing a legally reliable approach for performing and evidencing the electronic notarial act and managing notaries’ electronic signatures and seals. Without a Virginia Standard that is aligned to the various national signature laws and emerging industry access control and secure messaging requirements, notaries could face the need to have access to multiple electronic signing credentials and systems. At the same time, every relying party should know that the electronic signature and seal of the Virginia electronic notary are as legally valid and reliable as the electronic signature and seal of a notary in any other jurisdiction.
 
Electronic Service of Process
 
State of Virginia Leading the way on Electronic Service of Process -  If the statutory agent provides for electronic service, the service of process may be served on the statutory agent electronically. If electronic delivery is used, sufficient proof of the electronic delivery shall be retained, which may be an electronic receipt of delivery, a confirmation that the notice was sent by facsimile, or a certificate of service prepared by the sender confirming the electronic delivery. The statutory agent may charge an additional fee not to exceed $10 for such electronic service.
 
Electronic Court Filing
 
State of California Leading the Way on Electronic Court Filing - As of January 1, 2013, eFiling is mandatory for all civil cases (complex, unlimited, and limited) except for small claims cases. See Superior Court of Orange County Local Rule 352. Note: paper filings in civil cases will not be accepted after January 1, 2013.
 
Fewer Paralegal and Legal Secretaries
 
It was just two years ago that the Bureau of Labor Statistics predicted an 18 percent growth rate in paralegal jobs through 2020, but now, according to an Associated Press analysis, a lot of that work is being taken over by technology replacing humans. “Those (paralegals) without technology knowledge and ability are at the highest risk,” says the Estrin Report

 

There are many other examples that I could cite that make the case that all industries must evolve and reinvent themselves if they are going to last and remain relevant. 

Are you prepared to do what it takes to start asking and answering the questions that will require you to examine where you are and where you see your business and the industry five years from now?    Process Servers must consider scenarios not just for formulating a strategy to respond to the future but more importantly, for inventing it.