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."

Technology is Modernizing Process Serving

This from InsideArm, an accounts recieveable managment association that caters to the consumer debt collection indsutry...

The industry’s leading process service companies are now deploying sophisticated technology and mobile devices to add substantive evidence that legal documents are properly served and that collections agencies and attorneys are providing defendants proper notice of legal proceedings. says Steve Carrigan of ABC Legal

http://www.insidearm.com/opinion/technology-is-modernizing-debt-collection-process-serving/ 

What do you think?  Is all this monitoring of process servers a good thing?   Later this month a process serving standards summit will be held in Denver to discuss the possible adoption of minimum industry standards for process servers serving consumer debt collection matters.   View the proposed standards here. http://www.processservingstandards.com/ 

by Jeff Karotkin

New York Process Servers Granted Partial Restraining Order Against New Regulations

For those of you interested in or are following the developments in the city and state of New York as it relates to the Sewer Service fallout, the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) for the city of New York has published the new regulations that impose additional requirements on individual process servers and process serving agencies. 

Needless to say the New York State Professional Process Servers Association (NYSPPSA)  has mobilizing its members in an effort to minimized the impact of the proposed and adopted rules over the course of the last year.  To that end, NAPPS too has offered its support and financial assistance.  Due in part to the generous contributions NAPPS made financially (approximately $50,000.00) NYSPPSA was able to retain a law firm to file a restraining order in an effort to block or at least temporarily stop the implementation of the new regulations. 

Today NAPPS announced the following:

The New York State Professional Process Servers Association (NYSPPSA) was granted a partial restraining order on March 21 to allow the Association and the City of New York to continue negotiations over new regulations for professional process servers within the city limits.

For the full press release please click here.

If you are interested in reading the current version of the regulations I encourage you to visit the DCA website for a complete description of all the requirements.  The following are links to all the new reg's and the forms the DCA has posted on their website. 

New York City Licensing Law and New Rules
License Application for Agencies
License Application for Individuals
Process Serving Agency Background Information Form
Process Server Individual Background Information Form
Roster of Process Servers
Roster of Process Serving Agencies
Surety Bond Model Template
List of Bonding Companies
Excel Spreadsheet for Maintaining Electronic Records
Compliance Plan Affirmation
Process Server Individual Trust Fund Enrollment Form
Child Support Certification Form
Granting Authority to Act Affirmation

I went through them the other day and found myself wondering will the small and mid-sized agencies survive. Depending upon whether you are getting a license as an agency or an individual, there are as many as fourteen (14) forms to complete, hundreds if not thousands of dollars to be paid, bonds in the amount of 10K or 100K to obtain and countless new reporting requirements to comply with.  As if that were not enough, this version of the regulations do not even deal with the proposed GPS or electronic tracking requirement that the DCA will likely implement later this year.

In my humble opinion these regulations impose a significant challenge and/or barrier for everyone impacted but will most severely impact the solo  agencies and mid-sized agencies as well as independent process servers.  So much so, that unless NYSPPSA successfully stops or changes many of these requirements many of those folks will find themselves unable to comply and as a result will likely be forced out of business.  

As is typical in situations like this, those that created the current problem that resulted in these new regulations are not going to be the ones who suffer the consequences. 

posted by Jeff Karotkin

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

Consumers Union Recommends Increased Oversight of the Service of Process

Consumers Union Report was issued last month (January 2011) that deals with alleged debt collection abuses. Process Servers and the service of process are mentioned in the report.

The report addresses many alleged abuses committed by the collection industry. Admittedly Process Servers are not the primary focus of the report, but once again the New York sewer service incidents are being called out as the reason for increased oversight of the process serving profession. However, one of the key recommendations by Consumers Union is to “increase oversight of the service of process” at a state and federal level.


I believe that even though it may feel like the right thing to do for those in power, more laws and regulations like those currently being imposed in NY are not necessary or useful. These new laws will only serve to drive many small and solo process servers out of business or force them to become part of larger companies in order to survive.


If the profession has any hope of stopping the kind of knee-jerk reaction like we are seeing NY, the profession should continue to watch the Federal Trade Commission’s activities
and recommendations and the activities of the newly formed agency Consumer Financial Protection Bureau who may have the authority to write new laws under the FDCPA to rein in alleged abuses.

New York Attorney General Shuts Down Another Process Serving Company

In July of this year New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo filed a complaint against SERVES YOU RIGHT, INC and DAVID WARSHALL. The complaint alleged that the defendants engaged in fraudulently business practices, making false representations on affidavits of service throughout Long Island and New York City.

Seven days later, a Consent Order and Judgment was entered in this case permanently enjoining the defendants from being involved in or being employed by any process serving companies or process serving activities. SERVES YOU RIGHT, INC was required to immediately cease operations within 60 days of the Order. DAVID WARSHALL was also ordered to pay a fine to the NY AG's office in the amount of $50,000.00 within ten (10) days of the order.

The complaint can be found at this link. The Consent Order and Judgment can be found at this link.

This action is part of an ongoing investigation by Attorney General Cuomo into unlawful debt collection practices. Since commencing the statewide initiative in May 2009, Cuomo has shut down more than a dozen debt collection and affiliated process serving companies and required others to reform their deceptive practices.

FTC Final Report of Debt Collection Industry

FTC Issues Report on Reforming Debt Collection Litigation and Arbitration; Recommends Steps to Protect Consumers and Repair a Broken System

Process Servers are called Out as Part of the Broken System.   The Report Recommends Four Steps to Help Insure Proper Notice.   The Recommendations though well meaning, will only serving to make the act of service of process more cumbersome and expensive.  

They will not stop those that chose to break the law regardless of the rules and regulations.   

A new Federal Trade Commission report concludes that the system for resolving consumer debt collection disputes is broken, and recommends significant litigation and arbitration reforms to improve efficiency and fairness to consumers.

The report, “Repairing A Broken System: Protecting Consumers in Debt Collection Litigation and Arbitration,” reflects information gathered at roundtable discussions the FTC held throughout the country in 2009, as well as public comments and the FTC’s experience in debt collection matters. The roundtables followed a February 2009 report that identified some concerns with debt collection litigation and arbitration, but concluded that more information was needed about certain debt collection litigation and arbitration practices before further recommendations could be made.

The Commission therefore recommends state and local governments consider making a variety of reforms to service of process, pleading, and court rules and practices to increase the ability of consumers to defend or otherwise participate in debt collection litigation.

The FTC’s 2009 report found that debt collection litigation raised concerns about collectors failing to properly notify consumers of suits they have filed, collectors filing suits based on insufficient evidence of indebtedness, courts frequently granting default judgments against consumers who do not appear or defend themselves, collectors seeking to recover on debts beyond the statute of limitations, and banks freezing funds in bank accounts that are exempt from garnishment by law. In its new report, the Commission’s principal recommendations to address these concerns in litigation are:

States should consider adopting measures to make it more likely that consumers will defend themselves in litigation, decreasing the prevalence of default judgments.

Service of process may be inadequate or improper for many reasons. For example, process may fail to reach the consumer if it is delivered to an old or otherwise incorrect address or it is delivered to the wrong person, such as someone with a similar name. Some process servers may simply not serve the consumer but falsely assert that they have done so.

States should require collectors to include more information about the alleged debt in their complaints.

The FTC committed to closely monitor debt collection arbitration and evaluate whether creditors and arbitration forums provide consumers with meaningful choice and a fair process. The Commission also said that, as appropriate, it will report its views on new debt collection arbitration models to policymakers, industry, consumer groups, and the general public.

The FTC believes that reforms such as those discussed in the report should be made to ensure that the debt collection litigation and arbitration systems adequately protect consumers without unduly burdening the debt collection system, which helps to keep credit prices low and helps to ensure that consumer credit remains widely available.The Commission vote to issue the report was 5-0. Commissioner Julie Brill issued a concurring statement in which she urged Congress to enact a temporary ban on the mandatory arbitration of consumer debt collection disputes. “Such a ban should remain in place until the arbitration process can be shown to be fair, transparent, and as affordable as traditional litigation, and until consumers have a meaningful opportunity to opt out of pre-dispute arbitration without losing access to the credit services they seek,” she said.

Many consumer advocates and judges who adjudicate debt collection cases stated that inadequate or improper service occurs frequently. One local official reported that her agency’s comprehensive investigation of process servers in New York City revealed that “many are not performing service. They are filling out false affidavits of service. They are not going to the addresses. They are not sufficiently checking the addresses.” A Chicago judge explained similarly that one of his colleagues had conducted a “spot audit” of one process server and found that he “claimed to be in areas thirty miles apart in the Chicago-land area within minutes . . . . And we [asked,] ‘Is he Superman?’”

Nevertheless, the very high rate at which consumers do not appear and the service of process problems documented in some jurisdictions give the Commission a sufficient basis to conclude that efforts to improve service of process in debt collection litigation would benefit consumers in many locations.

An electronic version of the report text is available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2010/07/debtcollectionreport.pdf

New York AG Shuts Down Another Process Serving Agency

The NY state Attorney General’s office has shut down a process server company that repeatedly claimed in legal affidavits that its employees had made proper service of legal documents to thousands of consumers when in fact it had not.


The Attorney General Office entered into a settlement requiring Brockport-based We Serve It For You Process Serving Agency, LLC, operated by Joanne Marie Coy, John Coy, Theresa Buehler, and Wesley Converse, to immediately cease operations and cooperate with ongoing investigations. The business and its owners must also pay fees, costs, and penalties totaling $10,000 and John Coy must surrender his notary public commission.

The AG’s office began investigating We Serve It For You in 2009 as part of an ongoing probe into debt collection lawsuits.

“The toxic business practices of this company impacted individuals across New York State,” said Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. “People need to have trust in the legal system, and that’s why we are banning this company and its owners from serving legal documents to the people of New York.”

The Attorney General’s investigation determined that those documents were regularly signed and mailed to John Coy, who would notarize them without witnessing the signature. From 2007 to 2009, We Serve It For You served approximately 54,000 complaints and maintained a database detailing each service. The Attorney General’s Office and the Unified Court System determined that:

On more than 1,100 occasions, We Serve It For You process servers claimed to have made service or service attempts at two or more places at the same time.

On more than 700 occasions, We Serve It For You process servers claimed to have made service or service attempts before they even received the documents to serve.

On tens of thousands of occasions, John Coy notarized the signatures of We Serve It For You process servers when he did not witness the signatures.

Through the agreement with Attorney General’s Office, We Serve It For You and its operators are permanently barred from having any legal or beneficial interest in any business involving the delivery or service of legal documents. The business will permanently cease all activities and dissolve.

We Serve It For You and its operators are also required to cooperate with the Attorney General’s ongoing investigations into illegal debt collection practices.

The settlement follows recent action against another process server, American Legal Process (ALP), which engaged in a similar fraud and caused more than 100,000 consumers to have costly judgments entered against them without the chance to respond or defend themselves in court. Aside from a civil suit and criminal prosecution against the owner of ALP, Cuomo’s office is seeking to have more than 100,000 default judgments that were caused by the faulty service overturned.

The NY AG Press Release can be found here

NYC cracks down on process servers with new law passed today 3-25-10

Process Servers in New York City have been given notice that a new law is coming that will regulate them at a level that is was unthinkable a year ago. If the Mayor of New York signs the law process servers will be forced to do the following:



• Process servers must pass an exam showing they understand the law


• They also must electronically log their attempts to serve papers, using wireless or GPS, and keep those records in a database for seven years


• The legislation requires independent process servers to file a $10,000 surety bond


• The legislation requires companies to file a $100,000 surety bond


No longer is the process servers affidavit of service good enough in New York. All of this is thanks American Legal Process who allegedly dumped (sewer service) as many as 100,000 summons and complaints.


Business Week story here.

New York City Council Seeks to Crack Down on Process Servers Who Lie

Yesterday's New York Times published an article on the topic of Sewer Service. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/27/nyregion/27sewer.html


For those that have been following this developing story, you know this is the second effort in recent months by the NYC Council to regulate process servers in NYC. The first effort was unsuccessful primarily because the last session of the council ran out of time to pass the Bill.

This time around in a new session the sponsor has come back with an even stronger effort to further regulate private process servers who operate in the city and who forward process into the city even though they might reside outside the city or even outside the state. The Bill if passed in its current for would require process serving agencies to maintain a $100,000.00 bond and process servers to maintain a $10,000.00 bond.

The Bill also requires process servers to have a GPS device or other so called real-time tracking so that the process server can prove that they were where they claimed to have been at the time of the attempt or service event.

Essentially this means that the process server’s affidavit is no longer good enough! It means that there is no presumption that what the process server is attesting to is factual.

I am told that in order to get a Bond in the amount of $100,000.00, the process serving agency must be credit worthy in at least that amount. I suspect that will eliminate many agencies from being able to comply should this Bill pass.

This bill is a severe over reaction to a problem that came to light when ONE rogue agency was found to have committed sewer service. This bill is an attack on all in the profession and it must be fought and defeated.

The New York Professional Process Servers Association needs your support fighting this measure.

Please consider donating to the effort to fight this measure. You can do so by going to http://www.nysppsa.org/Legislative%20Fund%20form.pdf

The bill can be found here .

NY Sewer Service. What's next... Ankle Bracelets?

For those of you following the New York Attorney General case against William Singler and American Legal Process and the fall-out that has followed might not be surprised to learn that the New York City council is again attempting to pass a law that would further regulate process servers and process serving agencies.

The first such attempt by the NYC council was defeated by the New York Association of Professional Process Servers and NAPPS.

This time around NYC council is coming back with even harsher requirements. NYC council is seeking to track the movements of process servers by some sort of GPS device that would apparently to insure that process servers were where they claimed to have been as reflected on their affidavit of service.

They are also seeking impose stricter licensing requirements including $100,000.00 bonds for each process serving agency and $10,000.00 bond for each process server. It gets better, they also want to impose penalties and create a civil action against process servers who violate any of the provisions of the new law.

I fully understand that the NYC council is seeking to protect the rights of the citizens of New York. That is part of their job after all. I understand that what happened in NY was a serious problem that needed to be addressed. I am not surprised that the governing bodies in NY are seeking to further regulate process servers. I would only hope that the regulation does not go too far. In my opinion this proposed bill does just that. It is a severe over-reaction to what appears to be an isolated instance of one process serving agency allegedly engaged in criminal wrong-doing.  That one agency is not representative of the practices of an entire profession.

The New York Process Servers Association can use your help in defeating this proposed law click here to donate.

The following is the proposal that is going to be heard next week by the NYC council.

Int. ______

By Council Member Garodnick

A Local Law

To amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to process servers.


Be it enacted by the Council as follows:

Section 1. Section 20-403 of the administrative code of the city of New York is amended to read as follows:

a. Process server license. It shall be unlawful for any person to do business as, be employed as or perform the services of a process server without a license therefor.


b. Process serving agency license. It shall be unlawful for any process serving agency to assign or distribute process to individual process servers for actual service in the city of New York without a license therefore.


§2. Section 20-404 of the administrative code of the city of New York is amended to read as follows:


a. A process server is a person engaged in the business of serving or one who purports to serve or one who serves personally or by substituted service upon any person, corporation, governmental or political subdivision or agency, a summons, subpoena, notice, citation or other process, directing an appearance or response to a legal action, legal proceeding or administrative proceedings.


b. A process serving agency is any person, firm, partnership, association or corporation, other than an attorney or law firm located in this state or deputized city marshal, who maintains an office, bureau or agency, the purpose of which is to assign or distribute process to individual process servers for actual service in the city of New York.


[b.] c. For the purposes of this subchapter the service of five or more process in any one year shall be deemed to constitute doing business as a process server.

§3. Section 20-406 of the administrative code of the city of New York is amended by adding a new subdivision c to read as follows:


c. Each such applicant for a process server license or renewal thereof shall be required to pass an examination satisfactorily. Such examination shall be under the supervision of the commissioner and shall test the knowledge of the applicant concerning proper service of process within the city of New York and familiarity with relevant laws and rules.


§4. Subchapter 23 of chapter 2 of title 20 of the administrative code of the city of New York is amended by adding new sections, 20-406.1, 20-406.2, 20-406.3 and 20-406.4 to read as follows:


20-406.1 Bond required. a. As a condition of the issuance of a process server license, each applicant for such license or a renewal thereof shall furnish to the commissioner a surety bond executed by the applicant in the sum of ten thousand dollars, payable to the city of New York, and a surety approved by the commissioner. Such bond shall be conditioned upon the applicant's compliance with the provisions of this subchapter and any rules promulgated thereunder, and upon the further condition that the applicant will pay (i) to the city any fine, penalty or other obligation the city imposes relating to a violation of this subchapter and any rules promulgated thereunder, and (ii) to a plaintiff any final judgment recovered in an action arising out of the violation of any of the provisions of this subchapter within thirty days of its imposition. The commissioner may by rule authorize an individual applicant, in lieu of furnishing a bond, to satisfy the requirements of this section by depositing cash in an amount equal to the amount of the surety bond required by this section.


b. A process server licensed under this subchapter who engages in the business of serving process exclusively as an employee of a process serving agency licensed under this subchapter shall not be required to furnish a surety bond pursuant to subdivision (a) of this section.


c. As a condition of the issuance of a process serving agency license, each applicant for such license or a renewal thereof shall furnish to the commissioner a surety bond in the sum of one hundred thousand dollars executed by the applicant payable to the city of New York, and a surety approved by the commissioner. Such bond shall be conditioned upon the applicant's compliance with the provisions of this subchapter and any rules promulgated thereunder, and upon the further condition that the applicant will pay (i) to the city any fine, penalty or other obligation the city imposes relating to a violation of this subchapter and any rules promulgated thereunder, and (ii) to a plaintiff any final judgment recovered in an action arising out of the violation of any of the provisions of this subchapter within thirty days of its imposition. The commissioner may by rule authorize an applicant, in lieu of furnishing a bond, to satisfy the requirements of this section by depositing cash in an amount equal to the amount of the surety bond required by this section.


§20-406.2 Responsibilities of process serving agencies. Every process serving agency licensed under this subchapter shall:


a. Comply with all applicable state and federal laws;


b. be legally responsible for any failure to act in accordance with the laws and rules governing service of process by each process server to whom it has distributed, assigned or delivered process for service;


c. Provide to each process server employed by such agency a written statement indicating the rights of such employee and the obligations of the process serving agency under city, state and federal law. Such statement of rights and obligations shall include, but not be limited to, a general description of employee rights and employer obligations pursuant to laws regarding minimum wage, overtime and hours of work, record keeping, social security payments, unemployment insurance coverage, disability insurance coverage and workers' compensation;


d. Keep on file in its principal place of business for a period of three (3) years a statement for each employee, signed by such employee, indicating that the employee read and understood the statement of rights and obligations such employee received pursuant to subdivision (c) of this section.


§20-406.3 Records, Audits. a. Every process server and process serving agency licensed under this subchapter shall retain records in compliance with section 89-cc of the New York state general business law for no less than seven (7) years of each process served. Such records shall be retained in electronic form. Tampering with any such electronic records shall be prohibited.


b. A process server licensed under this subchapter who engages in the business of serving process exclusively as an employee of a process serving agency licensed under this subchapter shall not be subject to the provisions of subdivision (a) of this section, but shall be required to comply with all other applicable laws.


c. The commissioner may conduct audits of the information required to be kept pursuant to subdivision (a) of this section in order to monitor compliance with this subchapter.


§20-406.4 Educational materials. The commissioner shall develop educational materials to be provided to all process servers and process serving agencies licensed under this subchapter. Such materials shall at a minimum identify the laws and regulations pertaining to service of process in the city of New York.


§ 5. Section 20-408 is REPEALED and a new section 20-408 is added to read as follows:


§20-408 A process server licensed pursuant to this subchapter shall carry and operate at all times during the commission of his or her licensed activities an electronic device that uses a global positioning system, wi-fi device or other such technology as the Commissioner by rule shall prescribe to electronically establish and record the time, date, and location of service. All records created by such electronic device shall be maintained in an electronic database by the process server, or if such process server is acting exclusively as an employee of a process service agency, by the process service agency, for seven (7) years from the date such record is created.


§6. Section 20-409 of the administrative code of the city of New York is amended by adding a new subdivision c to read as follows:


c. Upon application for renewal of a license issued pursuant to this subchapter, applicants subject to subdivision (a) of section 20-406.3 of this subchapter shall certify in writing compliance with the record keeping provisions of such section.


§7. Subchapter 23 of chapter 2 of title 20 of the administrative code of the city of New York is amended by adding new sections 20-409.1 and 20-409.2 to read as follows:


§20-409.1 Violations and penalties. Any person who, after notice and hearing shall be found guilty of violating any provision of this subchapter, shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of chapter one of this title and shall be subject to a penalty of not less than seven hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars for each violation.


§20-409.2 Civil Cause of Action. Any person injured by the failure of a process server to act in accordance with the laws and rules governing service of process in New York state, including this subchapter and regulations promulgated thereunder, shall have a cause of action against such process server and process serving agency, which distributed or assigned process for service, in any court of competent jurisdiction for any or all of the following relief:


a. compensatory and punitive damages, provided that punitive damages shall only be awarded in the case of willful failure to serve process;


b. injunctive and declaratory relief;


c. attorneys’ fees and costs; and

d. such other relief as a court may deem appropriate.

§20-409.3 Reporting. Twenty-four months after the local law that added this section becomes effective, the commissioner shall submit a report to the speaker of the council regarding the effectiveness of these provisions on effectuating proper service and improving oversight over the process service industry. Such report shall include, among other things, the results of audits the commissioner has completed of process servers and process serving agencies, including information regarding their compliance with the provisions of this subchapt\er.

8. This local law shall take effect one hundred eighty days after enactment provided, however that the commissioner of consumer affairs shall take all actions necessary for its implementation, including the promulgation of rules, prior to such effective date.

Process Server Pleads Guilty to Fraud, Faces 1-Year Prison Term

The owner of a Long Island process serving business that put thousands of New Yorkers at risk of default by failing to notify them that they had been sued pleaded guilty Friday to felony fraud, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo announced Friday.

William Singler, the president of Lynbrook, N.Y.-based American Legal Process, will receive a jail term of one year for the Class E felony of first-degree scheme to defraud. [Read the criminal complaint (pdf).]

When Singler was arrested in April, his attorney, Corey Winograd of Winograd & Winograd in Manhattan, told the New York Law Journal that his client acknowledged that some of his process servers had not done their job, but claimed his client had not been aware of what was happening.

"He trusted those process servers," Winograd said last spring. "We now know today that some process servers breached that trust."

But in an appearance Friday before Acting Supreme Court Justice Alan L. Honorof of Nassau County, Singler admitted he had signed phony affidavits of service, swearing that court papers had been served on defendants in debt collection suits even though he knew many of his employees had broken the law.

Winograd, in an interview after the plea, said his client is

"taking responsibility for what occurred at his company and the actions of the many process servers who worked for American Legal Process, and he's looking forward to putting this episode behind him and moving on with his life."

As a result of Singler's fraud, many defendants had costly judgments entered against them, according to a statement by Cuomo.

Cuomo said Singler's crime

"impacted lives and caused financial hardship for thousands of New Yorkers,"

many of whom had their bank accounts frozen, their wages garnished and liens put on their homes.

Still pending is a civil action in Erie County against Singler and American Legal Process.

Filed in April, the suit, Cuomo v. Zmod Process Corp., dba American Legal Process, 4228-09, contends that between January 2007 and October 2008, Singler and American Legal Process

"persistently and repeatedly failed to serve New Yorkers in the manner prescribed by law, and have filed, or caused to be filed, thousands of false affidavits of service representing that service was proper."

During this time, there were 13,040 instances in which 55 servers reported they had attempted to deliver papers to a defendant before receiving the documents, according to the felony complaint against Singler.

And on 3,512 occasions, employees of American Legal Process claimed they tried to serve documents, but in fact they would have to have served different defendants in separate locations at the same time, Cuomo said.

Employees also claimed to have made process-serving attempts that would have required them to drive more than 10,000 miles in a single day.

In addition to the civil and criminal actions against Singler, Cuomo brought suit in July against dozens of law firms and two debt collectors seeking to vacate 100,000 defaults throughout New York.

Filed in Erie County Supreme Court on behalf of Chief Administrative Judge Ann Pfau, the suit seeks to vacate all default judgments where the only evidence that a defendant received service notifying him of being sued was based on an affidavit from American Legal Process, Pfau v. Foster & Garbus (pdf), 2009-8236.

The parties are working to resolve the case, according to a spokesman for the Unified Court System.

Under CPLR §308, servers must try to deliver papers three times before being allowed to mail a copy of the suit or "nail" a copy to a defendant's door.

Singler is due to be sentenced on March 24.

Meanwhile, in a separate federal case filed at the end of December, a group of civil rights advocates accused a network of debt collectors, including the law firm of Mel S. Harris and Associates, of civil racketeering, deceptive business practices, and violating federal debt collection law.

Sykes v. Harris and Associates, LLC, 09-civ-8486, was filed on behalf of a class of defaulting lawsuit defendants by the Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project, MFY Legal Services Inc. and the law firm of Emery Celi Brinckerhoff & Abady. The suit claims the defendants used fraudulent debt collection practices to obtain tens of thousands of default judgments against New York residents.

The defendants in the case could not be reached for comment.


Republished with License 01-20-2010 - ALM - Noeleen G.Walder

William Singler Owner of American Legal Process Guilty of Fraud

Singler plead guilty 1-15-10 in Nassau County Supreme Court to one count of first degree scheme to defraud, a class E felony. He is expected to be sentenced on March 24.

Singler admitted that he knew some of his employees didn't properly serve court papers the company was hired to deliver.

Singler broke the law and then lied to cover it up,” said Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. “It is not a victimless crime, but one that impacted lives and caused financial hardship for thousands of New Yorkers. Many had their bank accounts frozen, their wages garnished, and liens put on their homes, all because they were denied their day in court.”

It is being reported that he may get one year in jail. If true, I for one am outraged that someone that is responsible for such a terrible crime committed against thousands of people would only get a year in jail.

He single handedly tarnished the image of professional process servers around the world. I believe that the private process serving community needs to speak up and demand that he and all those that helped perpetrate the alledged crimes be held to account for their actions.  That includes the collection law firms that are alleged to have looked the other way when ALP claimed to have had such a high successful service rate.

Anyone in the collection food chain knows the type of results that ALP claimed to be achieving was impossible.

Full story http://bit.ly/5KSarS

Class Action Lawsuit Alleges "Sewer Service" by Collectors & Process Servers

A New York Times article dated 12-31-09 chronicles the story of a New York family that learned of a judgment against them only after the Marshall's office attempted to enforce the judgment.

In October 2009, a New York consumer rights law firm filed lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act in the United States District Court of New York in the Southern District case number 09-CIV-8486 (DC). The complaint was filed against a variety of defendants representing the entire collections chain starting with debt buyers, the law firms they retained and the process serving agency they contracted with.


This case stems from the alleged massive fraud that the NY Attorney General's office is currently investigating. The AG's office filed its own lawsuit earlier this year. The AG's office is attempting to have approximately 100,000 judgments thrown-out because they allege the process serving agency responsible for serving the complaints committed "Sewer Service".


If you want to be blown away by what allegedly took place you need to read the AG's complaint against the process serving agency and approximately 35 collection law firms. In one instance it is alleged that a process traveled over 1000 miles in one day serving complaints all over NY State, many at the exact same time they claimed to have served other defendants.


On December 28, 2009, the complaint filed in the federal court was amended by the plaintiffs making it a Class Action lawsuit. The plaintiff firm claims it could represent over 100,000 victims of judgments won since 2006.


Needless to say this saga continues to cast a negative light upon Debt Buyers, Consumer Collection law firms and Process Servers nationwide. One can only hope that those that are responsible for the alleged fraud in New York are brought to justice.

Fraudulent Service of Process being addressed in New York City

New York City Councilman Garodnick Announces Reform

of Fraudulent Process Service.

Garodnick Announces Reform of Fraudulent Process Service


In the aftermath of Attorney General Andrew Cuomo suing 35 law firms for illegally failing to notify New Yorkers that they were being sued over old debts, Council Member Garodnick announced legislation to protect consumers from fraudulent process service.

Each year, debt collectors suing in New York City Civil Court collect $800 million in judgments. In 80 to 90 percent of those cases, New Yorkers never realize that they have been sued — frequently because the process servers hired by the debt collection law firm never deliver their court papers. The result is a default judgment, which can be used to freeze a bank account and garnish wages, and which ruins a person’s credit.

Council Member Garodnick’s bill would rein in process servers by requiring that they, and the agencies they work for, provide the City a surety bond, or insurance, in order to be licensed to do business in New York City.

“Everyone is responsible for repaying their debts—nothing here changes that,” Council Member Garodnick said. “But our neighbors deserve a chance to defend themselves in court from debt claims, which are often frivolous. It doesn’t help anyone for our neighbors to be put into financial purgatory over debts they never actually incurred.”