United States Senate Bill S. 1946 introduced in the 112th Congress: 2011-2012; would require foreign manufacturers of products imported into the United States to establish registered agents in the United States who are authorized to accept service of process against such manufacturers. This is the third time that such a bill has been proposed in Congress. I believe that this bill deserves to be supported by all the state and national associations. If this bill were passed it could mean a new stream of process to be served in the United States.
In the past NAPPS took a neutral position on similar bills. Neither support or oppose; why? Without getting into the merits of the bill and if it is enforceable, why wouldn’t it be a good thing to allow process to be served in the U.S. on foreign entities doing business here? It seems to me that could generate a lot more work for process servers here. Those who are heavily invested in serving foreign process would naturally oppose this bill.
What do you think?
Remember you heard about this first from SOPLF! The associations follow this blog, my SOPLF group and ServeNow if they want timely, actionable and relevant process serving related content.
Jeff H. Karotkin
jeff@karotkin.com
Facebook group : http://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/serviceofprocess/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/SOPLF
Friday, December 9, 2011
Monday, November 28, 2011
Service of Process Law Review Article
This morning the National Law Review published an article commissioned by NAPPS on the relevance of personal service in a digital age. It is definitely worth taking the time to read it in its entirety. The following is a quote.
Here is a link to the article. http://bit.ly/SOPLawReviewArticle
There is perhaps no set of acts more important in furtherance of commencing an action before a court than the filing of a complaint and the service of process on a defendant. Simply put, without proper service of process a Court has no jurisdiction over a defendant and may not proceed to judgment.4 Further, any such judgment rendered will in all likelihood be deemed void. As discussed below, a critical underlying rationale for the strict requirements relating to service of process is for a court to obtain jurisdiction over the defendant, to give a defendant reasonable notice as to the pendency of a claim, and to provide a meaningful opportunity to raise constitutional issues.
Here is a link to the article. http://bit.ly/SOPLawReviewArticle
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Lessons Learned from a Lifetime in State and National Process Serving Associations
I am encouraged by the number of new state process serving associations that have been established recently. Congratulations on having the courage and fortitude to roll up your sleeves and do the hard work necessary to create meaningful results for your industry. From where I sit it appears that Alabama, Illinois and Colorado to name a few are off to great start. Keep up the good work.
These developments are exciting and fun to watch. As I observe the successes of these associations it got me thinking about what works and what doesn’t when one is trying to work for the good of the association. I have the benefit of experiencing both the good and the bad firsthand - having literally grown up in the process serving industry/profession - so I thought I would share my experiences, thoughts, and concerns in the hopes that the new and established associations might benefit from them.
Learning the ropes as a CAPPS member
I will never forget my first annual meeting as an adult. Yes, I attended one or two as a minor over 30 years ago thanks to mom and dad dragging us kids along. My first annual conference as an adult was a CAPPS (now CALSPro) conference in 1984 or 1985. I have a very clear recollection of the business meeting and how impressed I was with the leaders of the association and how they gave their time and energy for the good of the industry. I came away from that meeting thinking that anyone who does not get involved and take an active role in helping to shape the future of the industry was foolish; that only good could come from such a collaborative effort. I was proud to call myself a CAPPS member and I wanted to know where to sign up to do whatever I could to help make a difference.
I did sign up and started attending board meetings, I agreed to be an area governor, and I joined a committee or two. A few years later I was elected to the board. At first I was very quiet, I saw my job as the “newbie” to listen and absorb as much information as possible. I hoped to contribute in my small way to create value for the members. Things were good.
It did not take long before I was exposed to the bad. I do not remember if it was my second or third year on the board but there was an issue that became very divisive within the organization. So much so that several members started a recall petition of certain board members. The issue had to do with the courts adopting Fax Filing in CA. Many members apparently felt that because there were several board members who were all active with the formation of a new company (Fax Court Filing not to be confused with Fax & File), that posed a potential conflict and they sought to recall all of those board members. Long story short, I was one of the individuals targeted for recall. I quickly became disenchanted with the notion that we were all working for the common good of the industry and that this nonsense was not what I signed up for. So I resigned in principle rather than take sides and fight with my fellow members. A few years later I got involved again after tempers settled.
Over the years CAPPS accomplished a lot and became an important and meaningful force in the process serving profession. To this day I am so honored and proud to have been a small part of CAPPS’s (now CALSPro) successes. One of things that made CAPPS successful was its willingness to nurture and encourage the younger generation to get involved and take an active role. It was as if the founders of CAPPS knew that they needed a succession plan in order to preserve and grow the association.
One of the most important things in my opinion that CAPPS did several years ago was to acknowledge that it needed to question what it stood for and what its goals and objectives were both long and short term. Doing things the way they had always been done was no longer going to win the day. The association needed a goal and more importantly a plan for executing on that goal. So it gathered the leaders of the association, committee chairs and other interested parties for a strategic retreat. A two-day meeting with a goal to re-cast the goals and objectives of the association was held. The time and money spent to undertake this endeavor was money well spent and among other things the California Association of Legal Support Professionals (CALSPro) was born. To this day CALSPro continues to thrive because its leaders past and present understood what it would take to ensure the association and industry in CA would have a meaningful purpose and future.
I credit vision, courage and the leadership of the founders with helping create the environment where the association could evolve and prosper.
Getting involved on a national level with NAPPS
Leading up to the CALSPro evolution I decided to get active with NAPPS, figuring that what worked for CAPPS would work for NAPPS. It took time to get accepted but I persevered, having learned from my early years in CAPPS that things are not always going to go your way and that you need to hang in there.
Despite several challenges, I found my niche as the technology chair. I also found out the hard way that NAPPS and CAPPS, though similar in many ways, operated very differently. There was not the same willingness to nurture or even accept that others might have ideas worth considering. Rather, you learned that if you were going to be active in NAPPS there were two paths to follow. The path of least resistance was to accept your role and in time you would raise through the ranks and perhaps you would chair an important committee.
The other path was less traveled for good reason. It was fraught with potholes and roadblocks.
I found myself torn as I tried to be accepted and as I tried to create change. Both were difficult. As a result I found myself on and off the NAPPS board a few times.
When I decided I wanted to be president, I knew I would have to play nicer. At some level I decided it was more important to play long if I wanted to make a difference. I rationalized that the only way I was going to be able to make a meaningful difference was to do so from within the organization and that meant toning down my approach. Once president I was naïve because I actually thought that I had earned the respect of some of my fellow board members. I thought that I could help shape the future of the organization as president. Instead I found myself constantly on an island isolated aside from one or two supporters on the board. Because there were no clearly defined goals and objectives for the association each board member had their own view of what was important. As a result we were all pulling in different directions.
Those two years as president were not fun. I did manage to make a few changes and hope that I influenced a few people.
Now, for the first time in decades, you have a crop of new leaders coming through the ranks and the old guard is finally getting the message that they need to loosen their grip and let the association and industry evolve. If I played even a small role in helping to create the environment for this evolution to be possible then I am proud of my contributions.
Lessons to help all associations evolve and prosper
It is not always going to be easy and more than likely there will be significant challenges. Whether a new association or old, I think either can benefit from the experiences of those that came before.
My hope is that NAPPS and the new associations will take my observations in the manner they are intended - constructive - and apply the lessons learned.
Not that anyone asked but I am going to offer my specific advice anyway.
1.Clearly define the association’s goals and objectives both short and long term.
2.Clearly articulate those goals and objectives to the membership so as to ensure everyone is pulling in the same direction.
3.Create a plan for executing the stated goals and objectives.
4.Constantly take stock of your progress and be willing to take corrective steps when necessary to get things back on track.
5.Periodically reconvene the leaders of the association to re-examine the goals and objectives so as to ensure they are still relevant. It is important that you guard against group-think and include non-board members when you define the association and what it hopes to accomplish.
6.Celebrate successes and learn from your failures. Don’t give up.
7.Constantly nurture and encourage the future leaders of your organization.
8.Challenge yourself and the organization to question the status quo.
9.Be open to and embrace change. Not for change’s sake, but as a way of encouraging the growth and evolution of the organization.
10.Recognize when it is time to get out of the way and let others lead. Have a succession plan.
These developments are exciting and fun to watch. As I observe the successes of these associations it got me thinking about what works and what doesn’t when one is trying to work for the good of the association. I have the benefit of experiencing both the good and the bad firsthand - having literally grown up in the process serving industry/profession - so I thought I would share my experiences, thoughts, and concerns in the hopes that the new and established associations might benefit from them.
Learning the ropes as a CAPPS member
I will never forget my first annual meeting as an adult. Yes, I attended one or two as a minor over 30 years ago thanks to mom and dad dragging us kids along. My first annual conference as an adult was a CAPPS (now CALSPro) conference in 1984 or 1985. I have a very clear recollection of the business meeting and how impressed I was with the leaders of the association and how they gave their time and energy for the good of the industry. I came away from that meeting thinking that anyone who does not get involved and take an active role in helping to shape the future of the industry was foolish; that only good could come from such a collaborative effort. I was proud to call myself a CAPPS member and I wanted to know where to sign up to do whatever I could to help make a difference.
I did sign up and started attending board meetings, I agreed to be an area governor, and I joined a committee or two. A few years later I was elected to the board. At first I was very quiet, I saw my job as the “newbie” to listen and absorb as much information as possible. I hoped to contribute in my small way to create value for the members. Things were good.
It did not take long before I was exposed to the bad. I do not remember if it was my second or third year on the board but there was an issue that became very divisive within the organization. So much so that several members started a recall petition of certain board members. The issue had to do with the courts adopting Fax Filing in CA. Many members apparently felt that because there were several board members who were all active with the formation of a new company (Fax Court Filing not to be confused with Fax & File), that posed a potential conflict and they sought to recall all of those board members. Long story short, I was one of the individuals targeted for recall. I quickly became disenchanted with the notion that we were all working for the common good of the industry and that this nonsense was not what I signed up for. So I resigned in principle rather than take sides and fight with my fellow members. A few years later I got involved again after tempers settled.
Over the years CAPPS accomplished a lot and became an important and meaningful force in the process serving profession. To this day I am so honored and proud to have been a small part of CAPPS’s (now CALSPro) successes. One of things that made CAPPS successful was its willingness to nurture and encourage the younger generation to get involved and take an active role. It was as if the founders of CAPPS knew that they needed a succession plan in order to preserve and grow the association.
One of the most important things in my opinion that CAPPS did several years ago was to acknowledge that it needed to question what it stood for and what its goals and objectives were both long and short term. Doing things the way they had always been done was no longer going to win the day. The association needed a goal and more importantly a plan for executing on that goal. So it gathered the leaders of the association, committee chairs and other interested parties for a strategic retreat. A two-day meeting with a goal to re-cast the goals and objectives of the association was held. The time and money spent to undertake this endeavor was money well spent and among other things the California Association of Legal Support Professionals (CALSPro) was born. To this day CALSPro continues to thrive because its leaders past and present understood what it would take to ensure the association and industry in CA would have a meaningful purpose and future.
I credit vision, courage and the leadership of the founders with helping create the environment where the association could evolve and prosper.
Getting involved on a national level with NAPPS
Leading up to the CALSPro evolution I decided to get active with NAPPS, figuring that what worked for CAPPS would work for NAPPS. It took time to get accepted but I persevered, having learned from my early years in CAPPS that things are not always going to go your way and that you need to hang in there.
Despite several challenges, I found my niche as the technology chair. I also found out the hard way that NAPPS and CAPPS, though similar in many ways, operated very differently. There was not the same willingness to nurture or even accept that others might have ideas worth considering. Rather, you learned that if you were going to be active in NAPPS there were two paths to follow. The path of least resistance was to accept your role and in time you would raise through the ranks and perhaps you would chair an important committee.
The other path was less traveled for good reason. It was fraught with potholes and roadblocks.
I found myself torn as I tried to be accepted and as I tried to create change. Both were difficult. As a result I found myself on and off the NAPPS board a few times.
When I decided I wanted to be president, I knew I would have to play nicer. At some level I decided it was more important to play long if I wanted to make a difference. I rationalized that the only way I was going to be able to make a meaningful difference was to do so from within the organization and that meant toning down my approach. Once president I was naïve because I actually thought that I had earned the respect of some of my fellow board members. I thought that I could help shape the future of the organization as president. Instead I found myself constantly on an island isolated aside from one or two supporters on the board. Because there were no clearly defined goals and objectives for the association each board member had their own view of what was important. As a result we were all pulling in different directions.
Those two years as president were not fun. I did manage to make a few changes and hope that I influenced a few people.
Now, for the first time in decades, you have a crop of new leaders coming through the ranks and the old guard is finally getting the message that they need to loosen their grip and let the association and industry evolve. If I played even a small role in helping to create the environment for this evolution to be possible then I am proud of my contributions.
Lessons to help all associations evolve and prosper
It is not always going to be easy and more than likely there will be significant challenges. Whether a new association or old, I think either can benefit from the experiences of those that came before.
My hope is that NAPPS and the new associations will take my observations in the manner they are intended - constructive - and apply the lessons learned.
Not that anyone asked but I am going to offer my specific advice anyway.
1.Clearly define the association’s goals and objectives both short and long term.
2.Clearly articulate those goals and objectives to the membership so as to ensure everyone is pulling in the same direction.
3.Create a plan for executing the stated goals and objectives.
4.Constantly take stock of your progress and be willing to take corrective steps when necessary to get things back on track.
5.Periodically reconvene the leaders of the association to re-examine the goals and objectives so as to ensure they are still relevant. It is important that you guard against group-think and include non-board members when you define the association and what it hopes to accomplish.
6.Celebrate successes and learn from your failures. Don’t give up.
7.Constantly nurture and encourage the future leaders of your organization.
8.Challenge yourself and the organization to question the status quo.
9.Be open to and embrace change. Not for change’s sake, but as a way of encouraging the growth and evolution of the organization.
10.Recognize when it is time to get out of the way and let others lead. Have a succession plan.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Smartphones Are Not Smart, Process Servers Who Use Them Are!
The advantages a process server enjoys when they make full use of their smartphone are many. Aside from the obvious uses of a phone, anyone with 3G connection or better likely has access to the worldwide web at their fingertips. You can verify a business or residence address, you can verify a corporate status of an entity, you can take pictures of service attempts or locations, you can send and receive email, you can update the process serving application that tracks and manages active assignments, you can update the office or customers. All while you are on the streets doing what you do best: serve process.
There are several software vendors that cater to the private process serving industry that have developed applications that allow you to do all these things and more. Being able to provide your customers (process forwarder or law firms) real-time access to the status of any pending assignment is a good thing. A happy customer is more likely to be a repeat customer and is more likely to refer you to others.
One fairly recent development is the ability of these software applications to track a process server’s every move, attempt, routes, miles driven and other important service events by leveraging the GPS capabilities of your smartphone. Arguably the tools and benefits available to process servers have come a long way from the days of Thomas Brothers map books and pagers. As such, many tasks associated with the service of process have gotten easier, faster and cheaper. Another important and likely overlooked benefit is that these applications can create a trusted record of the efforts associated with the service events. I would argue that is a good thing, especially with all the stories of alleged sewer service in recent years.
Recently I have heard several independent process servers complain that they were not comfortable with the collection agencies, law firms and the process forwarding companies asking them and even requiring them to use a smartphone to communicate their efforts. They argued that this insistence or requirement was going too far and they were not interested in big brother tracking their every move. While I understand where they are coming from, I would suggest that these requirements are in effect no different than the requirements that existed before smartphones came on the scene. It has always been a requirement or expectation that independent process servers communicate with the process forwarders, law firms and collection agencies. Before smartphones, you called, faxed, or showed up in the customer’s office to provide a detailed account of your efforts. All a smartphone does is provide the process server a more efficient means to communicate. I submit that it actually makes the process servers more efficient. And a more efficient process server likely makes more money.
At the end of the day the process server is still his or her own boss just as they have always been. They control the manner and method by which they complete their task, just as they always have. I submit that the big brother argument is just an excuse for not wanting to embrace change.
If a process server is uncomfortable with the terms of the contractor agreement being offered then they have free will, and as such they can chose who they want to contract with. I submit that if you insist on not utilizing the most efficient tools available to you then you are putting yourself at a disadvantage. Rest assured someone else will gladly accept the terms and conditions that the process forwarders, law firms and collection agencies are offering.
But Jeff, aren’t you the same guy who has written articles that are critical of the new rules being imposed in New York that are intended to hold private process servers accountable by mandating GPS and other reporting requirements? I would argue that what I am suggesting in this article is different. In New York it is government that is imposing these requirements and not the free market. In New York you have two choices, comply or shut down. I would argue that it is better for government to enforce the existing laws that punish those that choose to engage in sewer service than impose new laws that take choice away for the process server and their customer. We do not need to be regulated by government to create a more accountable, trusted and transparent industry. I believe that we can do it ourselves.
The use of a smartphone will likely make you a better, faster, more efficient process server who is accountable and trusted. And isn’t that what the customer is ultimately looking for?
Smartphones are not smart, process servers who use them are!
There are several software vendors that cater to the private process serving industry that have developed applications that allow you to do all these things and more. Being able to provide your customers (process forwarder or law firms) real-time access to the status of any pending assignment is a good thing. A happy customer is more likely to be a repeat customer and is more likely to refer you to others.
One fairly recent development is the ability of these software applications to track a process server’s every move, attempt, routes, miles driven and other important service events by leveraging the GPS capabilities of your smartphone. Arguably the tools and benefits available to process servers have come a long way from the days of Thomas Brothers map books and pagers. As such, many tasks associated with the service of process have gotten easier, faster and cheaper. Another important and likely overlooked benefit is that these applications can create a trusted record of the efforts associated with the service events. I would argue that is a good thing, especially with all the stories of alleged sewer service in recent years.
Recently I have heard several independent process servers complain that they were not comfortable with the collection agencies, law firms and the process forwarding companies asking them and even requiring them to use a smartphone to communicate their efforts. They argued that this insistence or requirement was going too far and they were not interested in big brother tracking their every move. While I understand where they are coming from, I would suggest that these requirements are in effect no different than the requirements that existed before smartphones came on the scene. It has always been a requirement or expectation that independent process servers communicate with the process forwarders, law firms and collection agencies. Before smartphones, you called, faxed, or showed up in the customer’s office to provide a detailed account of your efforts. All a smartphone does is provide the process server a more efficient means to communicate. I submit that it actually makes the process servers more efficient. And a more efficient process server likely makes more money.
At the end of the day the process server is still his or her own boss just as they have always been. They control the manner and method by which they complete their task, just as they always have. I submit that the big brother argument is just an excuse for not wanting to embrace change.
If a process server is uncomfortable with the terms of the contractor agreement being offered then they have free will, and as such they can chose who they want to contract with. I submit that if you insist on not utilizing the most efficient tools available to you then you are putting yourself at a disadvantage. Rest assured someone else will gladly accept the terms and conditions that the process forwarders, law firms and collection agencies are offering.
But Jeff, aren’t you the same guy who has written articles that are critical of the new rules being imposed in New York that are intended to hold private process servers accountable by mandating GPS and other reporting requirements? I would argue that what I am suggesting in this article is different. In New York it is government that is imposing these requirements and not the free market. In New York you have two choices, comply or shut down. I would argue that it is better for government to enforce the existing laws that punish those that choose to engage in sewer service than impose new laws that take choice away for the process server and their customer. We do not need to be regulated by government to create a more accountable, trusted and transparent industry. I believe that we can do it ourselves.
The use of a smartphone will likely make you a better, faster, more efficient process server who is accountable and trusted. And isn’t that what the customer is ultimately looking for?
Smartphones are not smart, process servers who use them are!
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Process Servers Must Embrace Change or be Left Behind
I am always on the lookout for new applications that are not just cool but can create real value for businesses and individuals. Recently, I became aware of a new product called Square. Square is an application that enables individuals and businesses to accept credit card payments from their mobile device.
Anyone that accepts credit cards using the traditional methods and providers knows that the signup and equipment purchase/leasing is time consuming and expensive. With Square you can download the app to your phone or tablet, navigate the signup process and start accepting credit card payments within a matter of minutes. You do have to wait for Square to send you the credit card reader that plugs into your head phone jack if you want to swipe credit cards. I signed up and It took three business days for my card reader to arrive. Here is the kicker it is free and you can accept credit cards anywhere you have a phone connection. No monthly minimum charges or equipment fees and their swipe fees are very competitive.
I am not writing about this because I want to endorse a product, rather I am writing about it to illustrate what Square represents in my view. They challenged the status quo; transforming the relationship between buyers and sellers.
How is this relevant to process servers? Good question, I believe that it is a lesson that technology and innovative thinking will continue its forward march and impact our industry in ways that may be uncomfortable or even threatening to our existing business model(s).
Square founders saw an opportunity to create a business that challenged the status quo. They launched in 2009 and have already signed up over a half million customers. Square founders were not from the credit card processing business, thus they were not constrained by traditional thinking. They simply identified a problem and sought out an easy to enable solution. The traditional credit card processing companies were focused on how they have always fulfilled the merchant’s needs. They were not looking at how they could revolutionize their business. The point is they were stuck they were not embracing change.
My question to you is; are you paying attention to what is going on in process serving industry? I submit most in the industry are not. I think they are so consumed by the day to day operations to recognize that things are shifting and changing around them.
I believe that it is critical occasionally to take a step away from the day to day grind and get some altitude on things. Challenge yourself to reexamine the tasks you fulfill for your customers and ask yourself if you are meeting your customer’s expectations; and are you leveraging technology in a way that will enable you to remain relevant for years to come.
I submit the future of your business and perhaps the industry is riding on your ability to recognize challenges to your traditional business model and turn those challenges into opportunities. If you don’t, you may look up one day and wonder what happened to your business. The answer will be some like the founders of Square will have built a better mouse trap.
Anyone that accepts credit cards using the traditional methods and providers knows that the signup and equipment purchase/leasing is time consuming and expensive. With Square you can download the app to your phone or tablet, navigate the signup process and start accepting credit card payments within a matter of minutes. You do have to wait for Square to send you the credit card reader that plugs into your head phone jack if you want to swipe credit cards. I signed up and It took three business days for my card reader to arrive. Here is the kicker it is free and you can accept credit cards anywhere you have a phone connection. No monthly minimum charges or equipment fees and their swipe fees are very competitive.
I am not writing about this because I want to endorse a product, rather I am writing about it to illustrate what Square represents in my view. They challenged the status quo; transforming the relationship between buyers and sellers.
How is this relevant to process servers? Good question, I believe that it is a lesson that technology and innovative thinking will continue its forward march and impact our industry in ways that may be uncomfortable or even threatening to our existing business model(s).
Square founders saw an opportunity to create a business that challenged the status quo. They launched in 2009 and have already signed up over a half million customers. Square founders were not from the credit card processing business, thus they were not constrained by traditional thinking. They simply identified a problem and sought out an easy to enable solution. The traditional credit card processing companies were focused on how they have always fulfilled the merchant’s needs. They were not looking at how they could revolutionize their business. The point is they were stuck they were not embracing change.
My question to you is; are you paying attention to what is going on in process serving industry? I submit most in the industry are not. I think they are so consumed by the day to day operations to recognize that things are shifting and changing around them.
I believe that it is critical occasionally to take a step away from the day to day grind and get some altitude on things. Challenge yourself to reexamine the tasks you fulfill for your customers and ask yourself if you are meeting your customer’s expectations; and are you leveraging technology in a way that will enable you to remain relevant for years to come.
I submit the future of your business and perhaps the industry is riding on your ability to recognize challenges to your traditional business model and turn those challenges into opportunities. If you don’t, you may look up one day and wonder what happened to your business. The answer will be some like the founders of Square will have built a better mouse trap.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
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.
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.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Alternative Service via Facebook, Twitter or other Social Networks suggested by the Utah State Courts.
Recently I was poking around on the internet and happened upon the Utah State Court website that provides information on the service of process. This site is easily the most user friendly and accessible resource for information about all the definitions of and all the acceptable forms of Service of Process in Utah. I wish all state courts had their information so well organized.
One the sections that caught my attention was the description of Alternative Service URCP 4(d)(4). It read as follows:
If you cannot find the person to be served after using reasonable diligence, or if you can show the court that the person is avoiding service, you can ask permission to serve the complaint and summons (or other document required to be served under URCP 4) by some other means.
You will need to file a motion asking permission to use this kind of service and a statement describing your attempts to find and serve the person.
So far very standard stuff, one of the more interesting parts of the Alternative Service section is link to a resource page to find people also on the state courts website. That resource page offers approximately 15 suggested links on how to find someone “Finding People for Service of Process”.
But the section that I thought was most interesting was suggestions for the types of alternative service that you could pursue. The suggestions ranged from Publication to Service via a social network, such as Facebook; service via a text, service via notification to a phone number; or service to a Twitter account.
Those of you who have followed my postings on this blog know I have provided many examples of service via alternative means from all over the world. Until now I had never seen a state court provide suggestions for alternative service that specifically called out Facebook, Twitter, Text and other social media outlets.
It gets better; the Utah State Courts website even offers a blank Proof of Service that includes the following:
I communicating to the person named above by:
Social Network
(such as Facebook)
|
(at)
|
(name)
|
Twitter
| ||
Text message
| ||
Phone
|
posted by Jeff Karotkin
Friday, April 15, 2011
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:
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
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
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Philippine Supreme Court Allows eService of Summons on Foreign Firms
In an ever increasing litigation trend globally, the benefits of today's technologies is set to be implemented in yet another court system.
The Philippine Supreme Court announced the adoption of the use of electronic means to serve summons on foreign corporations who have been sued in the Philippines but have no resident agent or not registered to do business in the country.
The rule states in part:
For example, in Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio International the United States Ninth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by authorizing plaintiff to serve an Internet business outside the U.S. by email.
What does this mean for process servers? To say I knew for sure would be a stretch. I do believe that as the legal community in the Unites States and globally becomes more familiar with and accustomed to doing business online it is only a matter of time before traditional service of summons and complaints will be allowed by rule electronically.
Posted by Jeff H. Karotkin
The Philippine Supreme Court announced the adoption of the use of electronic means to serve summons on foreign corporations who have been sued in the Philippines but have no resident agent or not registered to do business in the country.
The rule states in part:
“When the defendant is a foreign private juridical entity which has transacted business in the Philippines, service may be made on its resident agent designated in accordance with law for that purpose, or, if there be no such agent, on the government official designated by law to that effect, or on any of its officers or agents within the Philippines.”From a practical standpoint this new rule is similar to the United States Federal Rule of Civil Procedure FRCP 4 (f) (3). U.S. courts have read this provision flexibly, consistent with the constitutional requirements of due process.
For example, in Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio International the United States Ninth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by authorizing plaintiff to serve an Internet business outside the U.S. by email.
What does this mean for process servers? To say I knew for sure would be a stretch. I do believe that as the legal community in the Unites States and globally becomes more familiar with and accustomed to doing business online it is only a matter of time before traditional service of summons and complaints will be allowed by rule electronically.
Posted by Jeff H. Karotkin
Friday, April 1, 2011
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:
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)