Dude Where Did My Service of Process Business Go?

For those following this blog for the last 5+ years know that I have focused it on how the Process Serving and Litigation Support industry has been or may be impacted by the digital revolution underway. 

This short post is no different.  It focuses on a troubling trend, the manner in which civil Subpoena's can be served (actually delivered) upon some of the largest companies in the world. 

After doing a little research for I found the 2015 Subpoena Guide produced by the Associate'sMind Blog to be a very informative and useful resource.  It provides links to detailed information about the polices and procedures of some of these entities in order to properly serve a Subpoena. 


After digging into the policies and procedures of these companies I found that many of them including Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, LinkedIn,  Snapchat, Pinterest and Craigslist all prefer Service of Process be delivered by other that traditional means.  Amazon's information goes into great detail about how to issue a subpoena with a court local to them as well as providing directions that suggests the only way to serve them is via Certified Mail.

As a matter of fact based upon the information they make available the preferred/requested methods of delivery for a Subpoena for civil records are Email, Fax and Certified Mail. I guess this is not at all surprising to many of my readers I have been documenting instances of electronic service and communication for some time now.  

So if you are wondering where your Subpoena business went this may have something to do with it. 

Below is a screenshot of a web-page that AT&T makes available that directs you how to provide them with the information about your Subpoena and what number to fax it to...

 

by Jeff Karotkin

Virginia Federal Court Allows Service Of Process By Facebook, LinkedIn & Email

Should the mere fact that a defendant is a "technology" company that embraces the latest technologies and conducts its primary business almost exclusively online subject that defendant to different service of process standards? 

Maybe so if that defendant has no known physical address where service of process can be reasonably served. 

It appears a Virgina Federal Court Judge agrees.  In the following case before the court the plaintiffs petitioned the court to allow service by alternative means pursuant to FRCP 4(f)(3)

WHOSHERE, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
GOKHAN ORUN d/b/a/ WhoNear; Who Near; whonear.me, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-00526-AJT-TRJ. United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division.

The court analyzed the acceptability of plaintiffs’ methods and found that:

In applying Rule 4(f)(3), a court may tailor the method of service to the circumstances so long as that method 1) is not prohibited by international agreement and 2) comports with constitutional notions of due process.  Courts therefore have flexibly applied Rule 4(f)(3) to authorize service by differing modes of electronic and online communications including and social networking sites like Facebook.

- See more at: http://it-lex.org/virginia-court-allows-service-process-facebook-linkedin-e-mail/#sthash.oDfoR4pT.dpuf

In applying Rule 4(f)(3), a court may tailor the method of service to the circumstances so long as that method 1) is not prohibited by international agreement and 2) comports with constitutional notions of due process. Courts therefore have flexibly applied Rule 4(f)(3) to authorize service by differing modes of electronic and online communications including and social networking sites like Facebook.

The court analyzed the acceptability of plaintiffs’ methods and found that:

In applying Rule 4(f)(3), a court may tailor the method of service to the circumstances so long as that method 1) is not prohibited by international agreement and 2) comports with constitutional notions of due process.  Courts therefore have flexibly applied Rule 4(f)(3) to authorize service by differing modes of electronic and online communications including and social networking sites like Facebook.

- See more at: http://it-lex.org/virginia-court-allows-service-process-facebook-linkedin-e-mail/#sthash.oDfoR4pT.dpuf

The court analyzed the acceptability of plaintiffs’ methods and found that:

In applying Rule 4(f)(3), a court may tailor the method of service to the circumstances so long as that method 1) is not prohibited by international agreement and 2) comports with constitutional notions of due process.  Courts therefore have flexibly applied Rule 4(f)(3) to authorize service by differing modes of electronic and online communications including and social networking sites like Facebook.

- See more at: http://it-lex.org/virginia-court-allows-service-process-facebook-linkedin-e-mail/#sthash.oDfoR4pT.dpuf

Additionally, the court finds that service of process by email and social networking sites is particularly appropriate here considering that defendant is in the technology business and allegedly identifies himself as a "mobile technology enthusiast" on his LinkedIn page. See Philip Morris v. Veles Ltd., 2007 WL 725412 at *3 (S.D. NY Mar. 12, 2007) (authorizing service by email and fax where "defendants conduct business extensively through their Internet website and corresponds regularly with customers via email"); See LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/in/gokhanorun (last visited February 11, 2014).

At what point will state courts adopt rules of court or civil procedure like FRCP 4(f)(3)?  When or if they do, who will be there to fight it for the private process serving industry?  And if this is what the courts,the judiciary and our customers want, might the industry be better served by finding a way to require that electronic service be only performed by a properly registered, bonded, licensed or otherwise lawful private process server?  What say you?

by Jeff H. Karotkin

In applying Rule 4(f)(3), a court may tailor the method of service to the circumstances so long as that method 1) is not prohibited by international agreement and 2) comports with constitutional notions of due process.  Courts therefore have flexibly applied Rule 4(f)(3) to authorize service by differing modes of electronic and online communications including and social networking sites like Facebook. - See more at: http://it-lex.org/virginia-court-allows-service-process-facebook-linkedin-e-mail/#sthash.1zsoky3p.dpuf

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. 

Has the Internet Changed the Service of Process

Has the Internet changed the way Process Servers perform their jobs? Will traditional process servers become a thing of the past?  

 

The answer is clear to the first question, how process servers perform their duties has changed in so many ways.  And electronic service of process may be one of the biggest changes on the horizon.

 

Tabitha Messick of Citizen Media Law Project, published a blog post earlier today (July 26, 2012) entitled Service of Process, 2.0.  Her post explores the role of Service of Process historically and chronicles its slow evolution up to a case in New York that I wrote about a few weeks ago involving a judge’s refusal to allow service of a defendant via social media.  Her blog post can be found here. 

 

She makes many of the same observations I have made in prior blog posts.  If I did not know better I would think that much of the information she has written about was gleaned from this blog.  If so, I am flattered.   The following is one of her observations:

 

"The ABA's Science and Technology Committee took a stab at addressing legal and technical issues with electronic service in 2006 with its Best Practices for Electronic Service of Process (eSOP). Though dated now, it was an important starting point in the discussion. The document proposed requiring knowing and voluntary waivers of service (e.g., via website terms of use), document encryption for privacy and confidentiality, and maintaining principles and protections consistent with due process. The draft rules also reiterated the importance of receipted transactions as reliable proof for electronic service of process."

As one of the few folks that was fortunate enough to have participated on the ABA committee that crafted the Best Practices, I have to agree that it is time to dust them off and use them as a new starting point to help ensure that simple email of social media platforms do not become the standard for reliable electronic service of process.  

It is crystal clear to me that the legal community is embracing change and primed to accept the notion that eService could be as reliable and trustworthy as traditional service of process. The question remains will traditional process servers be in a position to recognize that even though the shifting marketplace is scary and sometimes threatening it may present an opportunity?    Time will tell.

Jeff Karotkin

Process Servers - From Here to There

Process Servers and Our Association; How Do we Get from Here to There

Private Process Servers - - - Do you and does your industry or association have a road map?  What I mean is do we have a clearly articulated set of goals and objectives from which we can plot a course that ensures we remain as important and as relevant to the legal system as we have been for many decades?   Depending upon who you ask the answer to these questions will vary.   Another way of putting it is… are we renewing our greatness or are we dangerously on the cusp of falling from greatness and ceasing to remain relevant?  

To be sure there are several forces that are having an impact on our industry in a negative way.  The ever increasing pace at which technology is causing the legal profession to evolve is a challenge that many in our industry have failed to recognize.   Case and point, is the number of process servers that no longer have a role in fulfilling their clients’ needs at the courts.   If your court is has not already implemented electronic access to case files and electronic filing it will over the next few years.  This evolution alone threatens to diminish our role and relevancy in the eyes of the legal profession.  With electronic filing comes electronic service between parties.   I attended a demonstration recently given by LexisNexis File & Serve where they demonstrated their product.  They showed that they have filed and served millions of documents with the court and enabled electronic service (party to party) service.  They are serving 5,400 transactions per calendar day electronically.     All that business is gone or otherwise out of reach to the typical process server/legal support agency.   Why is Lexis so successful?  They are successful because they figured out how to remain relevant and bring value to what had been a very labor intensive paper based fulfillment process.  They embraced change and made it work for them and their customers.

Private Process Servers need to take a page from their playbook and start evolving.  I am not talking about creating a website or online order placement or stat using systems.  That is easy and though important in today’s marketplace it will not win the day.

Process Servers in my opinion should be looking outside the box and should be trying to figure out how they can enable electronic service between parties (law firms) and even enable electronic service to defendants directly.  I know that makes process servers uncomfortable.  Well guess what if you don’t figure it out someone else will.

This brings me to your association and its role if any in leading the industry forward so as to ensure all of us are informed and in position to bring value to the legal industry.  From where I sit I think that for the most part your associations have failed this test and as stated earlier in this piece; they too are on the cusp of falling from greatness and are dangerously close to ceasing to remain relevant.

I would submit that NAPPS and the state chartered associations have a responsibility to address the fundamental problems and challenges facing the industry.  Whether they are technological challenges, Sewer Service or the likelihood of increased government regulations, an effective accountable and transparent association will be crucial to getting the industry From Here to There.

In order for that goal to be realized the associations must reexamine their structure, their purpose and their goals and objectives.  I believe that these thing must be refreshed if the associations are going to be effective in the years to come.

It is clear to me that it is not good enough to be reactive to the challenges I have noted in the piece, rather recognize that the legal eco-system that we exist and live in has been evolving for some time and we have not.  We are at a crossroads that will determine whether or not each of businesses will evolve or die a slow death.

I don't proclaim to have a crystal ball but I do know that we (the associations and our industry) are on the cusp of falling from greatness.    Some of us will not only survive but will thrive, while others will not.  That is just the way things work.  Call it natural selection or evolution, whatever you chose to call it you need to decide which side of the fence you plan or being on.  

I have watched and participated in a few associations and I have learned few lessons along the way.  One of the most important among them is those that we consider the forefathers or founders did an amazing thing by leading earlier on, but now is the time for the next generation of leaders to step up, they need to refresh, reorganize and reenergize the association and the industry.  It is time to acknowledge where we are as an industry and that the status-quo thinking and decisions are outdated, they lack vision and purpose.   We need and should demand leaders that will roll up their sleeves, embrace change and ensure we do not fall from greatness but remain relevant and prosper for years and decades to come.
 

Jeff H. Karotkin

Service of Process by Email.

Yet another example of how things are changing. This is becoming a common alternative to Physical Service when traditional service methods fail. Some would have you believe that this development is much ado about nothing.

"So long as the method of service is reasonably calculated to reach the defendant and allow the opportunity to object and respond to the litigation, service through e-mail comports with the due process clause," Thynge wrote in her opinion.

For the complete story click here: http://bit.ly/sK6rx8


Remember you heard about this first from SOPLF! The associations follow Service of Process Looking Forward if they want timely, actionable and relevant process serving related content. 
 
Find us on facebook at http://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/serviceofprocess/ 

Will Physical Service of Subpoena’s on AT&T Become a Thing of the Past?

If AT&T has its way the answer is YES. As you can imagine AT&T and its family of companies receive Subpoena’s many times every day. In an effort to manage the intake and routing of records requests AT&T recently launched an online application that allows and encourages the delivery of Subpoena’s for records electronically.

The efficiencies they gain as a result of in-taking Subpoena’s through the electronic portal are enormous. The system is user-friendly and within a few short minutes AT&T gathers all the data necessary to quickly and easily process the request for their customer’s records. The user interface requires the initiator to provide all the court and case data necessary to satisfy their legal requirements. Once the initiator completes a few screens they are given a confirmation and instructions to fax the Subpoena to their intake center.

 
This development is nothing new; as a matter of fact one might argue that it is part of a global trend that embraces the use of technology in all aspects of the legal profession. In 2009, I wrote an article entitled
Is Personal Service of Civil Subpoenas Coming to an End? This article explores this trend and how it might impact the process serving industry. In that article I offered my thoughts and suggestions on what the industry could do to address this challenge. In my opinion most process servers and process server associations are failing to acknowledge that the future of the process serving process is going to change dramatically.

I contend that the AT&T development is the tip of the iceberg. Other companies like them are already embracing the concept of establishing a secure online channel for the intake of service of process. It may come to pass that the customers (law firms) of process servers will in time find out that they no longer need a process server for the timely, reliable and trusted delivery of their legal documents.

If you continue to think nostalgically about the process serving industry and how it used to be, then you are at the train station but not on the train. The emergence of web-based technologies and systems has and will continue to forever change the landscape of not just the process serving industry but virtually every business community. Process servers are not immune to this massive shift and will not remain relevant in the long term unless they find a way to ensure that they retain a role in the digital environment.


Process servers need to rethink their role and work with one another as a team to address this challenge before it is too late.

Are Sheriff Departments that Serve Civil Process Smarter than Private Process Servers?

One might argue that in Virginia the Sheriffs appear to be embracing change in a manner that private Process Servers are not. Does that make them smarter? You be the judge.


For a decade I have been writing and speaking about the challenges and opportunities that modern technologies present to process servers. I have maintained that it is not a matter of if electronic service of civil process will happen, but rather a matter of when.


It appears that “when” has arrived. No, I am not talking about the dozens of examples of electronic Service of Process globally that have allowed or enabled for the service of process under certain circumstances by email, Twitter, Facebook, text, social media outlets and even traditional websites.


No, this time I am referring to a bill that was introduced and passed without any opposition (none). The bill enables electronic service of Summons & Complaints in the State of Virginia. This bill from inception to completion took a few months. But its origin according to the sponsor dates back almost ten years. The following is what the sponsor said to me in an email after I reached out to him to find out more information:

Jeff,

Thank you for contacting our office regarding HB 1611. The electronic service of process features of HB 1611 were concepts developed as logical extensions of the eFiling of court records legislation over the last few years. The eFiling of court records legislation followed our eFiling of land records legislation, which had its roots more than 10 years ago.

So what exactly does this bill do? On its face it appears to enable the parties to a case to serve and accept Service of Process by electronic means. The attorney’s, the registered agents of parties and Sheriff are appears to have a role in the transaction. It appears to codify into law a practice that has existed for some time that up to now was more a kin to Notice and Acknowledgment Return Receipt Requested.


Please note that I did not include private process servers in the description above. That’s because it appears that the bill was written in such a way as provide the Sheriff with the sole authority to serve process electronic ally. The bill even sets a statutory fee that the Sheriff can collect to serve process electronically.


If you find yourself wondering, how could this happen when process serving associations like NAPPS are organized and whose very purpose are central to insuring adverse legislation does not impact our ability to remain relevant? Good question. I was wondering the same.


Perhaps more important at this point is the question I find myself asking… Was this bill an opportunity we missed? I believe that the answer is YES! If we had been aware of this bill perhaps we would have had influence that would have either limited its impact, or perhaps we would have come to realize that if eService is going to exist then we better find a way to have a role. I believe that if we hope to remain relevant given the ever changing landscape we operate in we must be willing to take bold steps to insure our ability to not just survive but rather thrive. If you think you can stop the march of technology and the forces driving it march into to our business you are being naïve.


In another example of Sheriff Departments seeking to gain efficiencies the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department introduced a bill last year in California that would have enabled them to intake and serve Writs/Levies electronically on banks and employers where creditors are seeking to garnish wages and levy on bank accounts. The bill was caught be the California Association of Legal Support Professionals (CALSPro) and they were successful in getting the bill amended in a manner that minimized the impact on private process servers in California.


There are other examples of local and state government embracing change that addresses the many challenges their organizations face. As a matter of fact there are at least three other instances of Sheriff Departments working with county agencies to allow for the service of Subpoenas on law enforcement officers electronically. Though these examples are less likely to impact private process servers they are indicative of the types of technology applications that could erode our role in due process.


If process servers are not proactive in their approach to addressing the future of the industry and the challenges and opportunities that lay ahead they will likely look up one day and wonder “How did I get here?” and “Is it too late for me to change?”


I continue to maintain that if process server’s hope to remain relevant in the years to come, they must be willing to embrace change and confront these types of challenges and opportunities.


I will leave you with that for now. I could carry on continuing to write about this topic but in the interest of trying to keep a this short, I will refer you to my blog for more information. There you can access sixty-five blog entries consisting of articles, commentary and opinion that are designed to get the industry to have what I believe is a long overdue discussion and exchange of ideas about the challenging times we live in. For more about the Virginia bill HB 1611 click this link.


posted by Jeff Karotkin

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

LOUISVILLE, KY, Metro Police, Jefferson Courts Test Electronic Subpoenas

LOUISVILLE, KY City leaders hope a stimulus grant will buy the Metro better court attendance. Starting next month, Louisville Metro Police Department officers will get their Subpoenas to attend court  proceedings electronically. 

This system is set to replace the cumbersome physical service method in place today where documents are lost and officers are not getting notice on time to attend.  It is estimated that some 100,000 subpoenas are served on county agencies in Louisville annually.  For more on this story click here.

I originally reported on this project in April of last year. See blog post http://bit.ly/g1G5uw

Service of Process in a Virtual Law Firm

Reprinted with permission of Virtual Law Practice
Stephanie L. Kimbro, Esq., M.A., J.D.

Virtual Law Office: Kimbro Legal Services, LLC


More virtual law firms are springing up that combine a traditional litigation practice with the features of a virtual law office. Members of these virtual firms use the online law office as a way to communicate and collaborate on case matters and to work remotely. Their clients use the client portal as a way to keep current on the status of their case, review documents, avoid numerous in-office visits and to pay their legal fees online. Some litigation practices, depending on the state bar’s rules, are foregoing the office lease and meeting with clients in shared office spaces with virtual receptionists (if you are a licensed NJ attorney, stick w/the brick & mortar expenses).


One of the questions I hear from litigation-based virtual law firms is how to handle service of process online. Most rules of procedure still require that the summons and any other accompanying documents be handed to the defendant in person at his or her residence or place of business. Different states have variations of the rule. Some require only service of process by licensed, private process servers rather than service by a court official, such as a sheriff. Some allow for electronic service of process. The states also have different forms and time deadlines for the process.

If the case is being filed in U.S. district court, the process is covered by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For an in-depth, 2009 law review article on the topic of electronic service of process in federal court, check out: Electronic Service of Process at Home and Abroad: Allowing Domestic Electronic Service of Process in the Federal Courts, by Ronald Hedges, Kenneth Rashbaum and Adam Losey, The Federal Courts Law Review, Volume 4, Issue 1, 2009.

If you are a virtual law firm, you are more likely to be handling cases where your clients and their case matters are not geographically located in the same cities where you and your firm members are practicing law. Imagine how a multijurisdictional virtual law firm that handles litigation must comply with different states’ rules for service of process. Most states allow for service by mail if the defendant is located in another state. But what if the virtual law firm has a presence in that state in the form of a firm member who is working remotely? Or what if the firm does not have a member physically in that state but who is licensed to practice law in the state that the defendant resides in? Is service by mail allowed then? Can email or social networking sites be used after snail mail fails to work?

I’m sure many of you read about the Australian case in 2008 where the law firm had attempted to follow traditional methods of service and after those failed turned to Facebook as a means of serving the defendant. See another fun law review article on this topic: Superpoked and Served: Service of Process via Social Networking Sites, by Andriana L. Shultz, University of Richard Law Review, Volume 43, 2009.

There are a lot of arguments in favor of electronic service of process which I’m not going to get into. In 2006, the ABA Section of Science and Technology Law updated its Best Practice for Electronic Service of Process. From my reading though, e-service continues to grow in acceptance and use, but is not in every states’ rules of procedure. Many firms, even those that use technology to deliver legal services, still prefer in-person service of process. In certain cases, they may want the in-person method to also convey to the defendant a greater sense of urgency that he or she take the matter seriously. A sheriff banging on the door might send a certain message that a posting on the Facebook wall might not.


For that reason and while waiting for all court systems to get on the electronic service of process bandwagon, a virtual law practice could consider the use of a web-based process server that allows the firm to order, track and manage service of process securely online. This might be a good use of web-based technology to assist a virtual law firm in handling service of process across the country, online in a secure web-based system. I’m sure there are other process server companies out there adapting to the changes in technology, but I’ve been exploring the services offered by USA-Serve and how they might be used by a virtual law firm whether its a solo practice or a larger multijurisdictional firm. The company has a secure portal for attorneys to manage and track service of process. If you are a litigation-based virtual law practice, it might be worth checking out this cloud based service for certain cases.

Know of any other companies providing electronic service of process or that has a web-based system that firms can use to track and manage service of process across the country and internationally? How can these systems’ features be integrated into the case and client management of a virtual law office? As more litigation-based firms add virtual law offices to their services, I would expect to see this component added into the process of managing a client’s case online for use by the firm’s remote attorneys and virtual administrative assistants and paralegals.
 
For more blog posts from the author of this post please visit Virtual Law Practice

Electronic Subpoena System to replace cumbersome hand delivery of 100,000 paper subpoenas

Louisville Metro police have signed a $454,000 contract to adopt an Electronic Subpoena System to replace the county's cumbersome system of hand-delivering 100,000 paper subpoenas annually and help make sure officers show up for court.

“Everybody's going to benefit from this,” especially police, said Bruce McMichael of the Louisville Metro Criminal Justice Commission.

Metro Police Lt. Col. Vince Robison, responsible for overseeing court attendance, said the department is “very optimistic this will help us eliminate” the problem of officers missing court.

In recent years, an estimated 10 percent of the approximately 100,000 paper subpoenas issued annually to Louisville police never reached the officers, according to department officials. They and others cite the process as one reason why officers miss court. More on this story can be found here.

For those of you following my Blog you know this is the second major instance where government has deployed this type of solution to deal with the challenges associated with physical paper service of process.

I suspect this is just the beginning of things to come...