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

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

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

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

Official (Former Process Server) to use business background to help him govern

MARTIN COUNTY - City Commissioner Troy McDonald plans to put his experience as a local business owner to work for the people of Stuart.

For 12 years, Mr. McDonald has operated Duces Tecum Process Serving. Less than one month in office, he said his priorities include seeking ways to improve the business environment to create jobs, develop opportunities for existing companies and attract investment to the area.

"I've seen the difficulties that businesses have been through," he said. "I've talked to a lot of business owners. I can use the tools and knowledge I've gathered to help them."

http://www.myhometownnews.net/index.php?id=78018

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.

Proposed Rule Requires GPS to Track and Record Process Server Activity

The New York City Department of Consumer Affairs has given notice that it  intends to adopt new rules regarding the licensing of process servers.   The new rule 2-233b Electronic Record of Service, would among other things require all process servers in New York City to have a GPS enabled device for the purpose of tracking, monitoring and recording electronically all the activities a process server engages in to affect service.

The DCA hearing is set for January 27, 2011 at 10:00 a.m., 66 John Street, 11th floor hearing room, New York, N.Y. 10038.

The proposal new rule dictates what records physical and electronic must be kept, how they are to be maintained and for how long.  Process servers will be is responsible for turning those records over upon request to the Department of Consumer Affairs.  

This rule is an additional requirement imposed by the NYC council last year.  As I understand it some of the details are still being worked out, but all process servers will also be required to purchase a $10,000.00 surety bond and all process serving agencies will be required to have a bond in the amount of $100,000.00.

All of this is the result of a few rouge process serving agencies that allegedly engaged in "Server Service".  This blog has reported on a few of those agencies in prior posts.  

At least two of those process serving agencies, "American Legal Process" and "Serves You Right, Inc" have been investigated by the NY State Attorney General Office and as a result have been either formally charged with crimes or closed down. 

Another NYC process serving agency "SamServ" was in the news this week.  The American Bar Association Journal ran a story entitled "Federal Judge OKs RICO Conspiracy Class Action Against Law Firm in ‘Sewer Service’ Case" the story refers to a lawsuit that alleges a scheme where debt buyers, a law firm and a process serving agency worked with one another to defraud consumers in collections cases. 

This Federal Court decision could not have come at a worse time for New York process servers given the Department of Consumer Affairs hearing later this month. 

If these and other agencies did commit fraud or worse, they should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law.   Unfortunately all other process serving agencies will have to also pay a steep price as a result as a result of the new rules and regulations.  Some fear that many process serving agencies will be forced out of business as a result. 

Service of Process in a Virtual Law Firm

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

Virtual Law Office: Kimbro Legal Services, LLC


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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Service of Process by E-Mail on a Foreign Defendant

In a case that was heard in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, Judge Jeffrey S. White ordered the following:

"Although the Court does not find that the service already effectuated by Plaintiffs was improper, in an abundance of caution and considering that the WikiLeaks Defendants may be foreign  parties, the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to re-serve the amended complaint and summons and all TRO-related papers, including this Order, on the WikiLeaks Defendants at their listed email addresses by no later than 3:00 p.m., today, February 13, 2008."

This is an example that the world we live in is getting smaller or perhaps more local.  This is in large part thanks to the power of the internet and its ability to bring things that were once far away or difficult to gain access to directly to our desktops.

The power of the internet and the technology that enables it is making easier  to communicate in ways that were not even contemplated just a few short years ago.   This power to communicate is spilling over into the world of litigation and more specifically the act of giving notice to a party of a pending action or Service of Process.  

This blog has in part called to your attention numerous examples of courts worldwide that have come to recognize that sometimes the most effective manner for providing legal notice of a pending action is by electronic means.  In the past the only alternative for effecting service on a party that could not be located was publication. Now we are seeing service by Twitter, Facebook, and email more and more frequently.  

Is this a much ado about nothing as some in positions of power in the process serving community have suggested or is this yet another example of trend that seems to be gaining momentum?  

You be the judge. 

District of Court Permits International Service of Process via Email

MR Printing Equipment, Inc. and MR Sales and Service, Inc

-v-

Dietmar Potscher

Case Number: 10cv00937

Filed: February 10, 2010

Court: Illinois Northern District Court

U.S. District Judge John W. Darrah permitted Plaintiff, MR Printing Equipment, Inc., to serve a complaint and summons on Austrian defendant, by e-mail. This is yet another example of a continuing trend in federal litigation in the US and courts globally.

The case, MR Printing Equipment, Inc. v. Potscher, is pending in the United States District Court

in Illinois. Upon motion of the MR Printing the court permitted the defendant, to be served via e-mail under Rule 4(f)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The fact that the defendant resides in Austria which is not a signatory to the Hague Convention and the permissive language of the Federal Rules related to the service of process, allowed the Judge to permit international Service of Process via email.

Below is the Judges Minute Order on the Plaintiff's Motion to allow International Service via email and the Proof of Service filed in the case indicating the manner of service.



Canadian Judge Allows Service of Process Via Facebook

Cyber-service ‘a new frontier’

Story Source - By Michael McKiernan | Publication Date: Monday, 25 October 2010

An Ontario judge has urged lawyers to be creative with electronic methods of service after allowing a litigant to do it using Facebook in a family law case. 

This makes five or six cases worldwide that this blog has chronicled in the last year.  Admittedly this form of alternative service continues to be authorized when other forms of service have failed. 

That said, check out one Canadian lawyer said about service of process in the digital age.

For him, Facebook is a much better option than traditional methods of substituted service, such as placing an ad in a newspaper. He has also considered creating a web site using the name of a defendant with originating documents available for download.

“The chances of someone Googling themselves is probably higher than somebody catching a legal notice in the Toronto Star directed to them,” he says. “It’s not a great way of serving someone but compared to putting an ad in the newspaper, it’s much better.”

“We need some reform in the Rules to allow for more efficient service. There are many ways the lawsuit could come to that person’s attention without having to have a third party go and knock on that person’s door at the dinner hour.”

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.

Singapore's Supreme Court Considers Service via Social Media

Process Servers have a sometimes difficult sometimes easy job to perform. This task "the service of civil process" has remained largely unchanged for more than 100 years. This Blog was dedicated to chronicling the many challenges the process serving profession currently faces.

On several occasions in the last year this Blog has cited examples of how modern technologies are impacting or posing threat to the traditional role of process servers.



For those the follow this Blog you know that I have cited several examples of social media already being used to effect the service of process most notably in Australia (twice), New Zealand, Canada and the United Kingdom.


The Singapore Supreme Court is exploring how to leverage social media platforms for the benefit of the civil litigation process. Specifically, the high court has published a document titled USE AND IMPACT OF SOCIAL MEDIA IN LITIGATION.


This twenty-six page document explores the opportunities and challenges associated of the use and impact of social media in civil litigation. The document proposes several best practices for both personal and substituted service discovery, exchange of documents between parties and other applications for social media platforms.


The Supreme Court is inviting public comment on these best practices and proposals. The due date for comments is September 15, 2010.   The document can be found here. 

On occasion I have accused of “promoting” electronic service of process. That is not the case; all I have been doing is calling attention to the issue in the hopes that NAPPS and all private process servers will one day have a meaningful and productive conversation about what these challenges mean to our profession.


Unless we want to be like the pony express (extinct) we had better find a way to insure that a disinterested third party (process server) retains a role in an electronic world.

What are process servers going to do when there is a proposal at the federal level that seeks to leverage today’s technologies in a way that marginalizes our role? It will happen; it is only a matter of time.


I am not saying the sky is falling. I am saying it is time to acknowledge these types of changes challenge our very existence and these types of challenges are presenting themselves with ever increasing frequency.

The fundamental question is; what if anything are process servers going to do to ensure that they remain relevant? The notaries figured it out… why can’t process servers? If we do not figure it out, social media and email may well fill the void. Then where are we?


I might be wrong, but I doubt it.