Why Most Process Servers Go Out-of-Business

By Nelson Tucker

Isn’t it amazing that you often call an old phone number for a process server who you used in the past only to discover that the number has been disconnected? Unfortunately, it happens all too often and it is because too many process servers do not take what they do seriously enough to make their business successful.

How do I know? I have been training process servers for the past 29 years and have been a process server myself since 1978. I have personally trained over 1700 process servers nationwide and have seen most of them come and go. It’s not that they were not well trained – I would never say that. Its just that they found a career that they thought was lucrative but they failed to do the “business” part of the business.

[Process serving is like any profession – it requires a proper education,
the necessary tools of the trade, and a good business sense]

It must be pointed out that most process servers are capable and reliable. It’s the few who are not proficient in their field that end up going out of business.

Jerry was a process server who was introduced to the business by his cousin. He liked the flexible hours but did not like paying his own expenses. He had always worked for someone else as an employee and the transition to becoming an independent contractor was a big paradigm shift for him. Eventually, he became accustomed to being responsible for overhead in exchange for the self-employment income that he was earning. It was a shift from payroll to profits. The only problem was he spent everything he made, and when a few of his large accounts fell seriously behind on payments to him, he was forced to close his doors.

Process serving is like any profession – it requires a proper education, the necessary tools of the trade, and a good business sense. The education and training are the easy part. Obtaining the tools of the trade is doable. It’s the good business sense that creates a problem.

Many process servers went into business for themselves after working for a short time for someone else. They saw the opportunity to make a serious income by owning their own company but often did not have the proper business experience. They lacked the skills of marketing, time management, personnel development and all of the proficiencies needed to be a successful business person. Thus, they struggled or failed!

Here are the primary reasons process servers fail to be successful and eventually go out of business:

1. Not a self-starter: When you work for someone else it is easy to obey the alarm clock and go to work on a daily schedule. However, when you work for yourself, as most process servers do, it is not always easy to develop a habit of working when there is no one to tell you what is to be done. Good process servers understand the need to be a self-starter. Great process servers are “go-getters!”


2. Do not have good marketing skills: All businesses, both large and small, must find a way to let customers/clients understand the benefits of doing business with them. The same is true with process servers – selling benefits rather than selling the product. Marketing skills are easily learned but the strategies change regularly with the advent of technology and modern methods of getting the word out about your services.


3. Do not understand what it takes to run a business: Most new process servers starting out are either young (20’s) or retired (often from law enforcement). Young people often do not have good business skills based on lack of experience while former law enforcement officers previously worked for the government and likely were not exposed to the rigors of being self-employed.


4. Are not honest in everything they do: This problem is larger than you may wish to believe. I wrote in a recent blog entitled “ Why Some Process Servers Cheat” (www.processnet1.blogspot.com) stating that “some” process servers cheat because of lack of morals, being lazy, taking short-cuts, or simply because they have gotten away with it in the past. However, if you treat every defendant as you would wish to be treated if you were in their shoes, your job will be easier and due process will be served.

Of course, not every process server fits into the categories above. Most of the process servers with whom I have worked have been hard working and true to their duties; those are the ones who succeed. It’s the few who do not who are the subject of this writing.

My goal has always been to help others be successful in our profession. Once I fully understood how process serving really work, I was able to teach others to be the best that they could be. Many “old timers” in the business were extremely critical of my efforts to train so many new process servers back in the 1980’s. Most of them have gone on but I am still here – not yet ready to retire.

I have had the privilege of writing three books on service of process. The first was authored in 1994, “Getting Rich in Process Serving” followed by “Process Serving for Pros.” Both are available online at www.processnet1.com . The newest publication is almost ready for print and is entitled “ReInvent Your Process Service (or P.I.) Business” and a draft copy is available on our website.

Why do so many process servers go out of business? I assume you have some answers and I welcome your comments and feedback.

Nelson Tucker is CEO of Process Service Network located in the Los Angeles area. He has been a process server and owner of a legal services firm for the past 33 years. His company specializes in international and hard-to-serve cases. He may be contacted at processnet@sbcglobal.net .

How Facebook and Social Media Are Affecting Service of Process

Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Buzz, MySpace and blogging platforms like Blogger.com and WordPress.com have emerged on the social networking scene with rapid growth and significance. As more and more people seek to make themselves, and their personal lives, known to all who have an interest there is also the issue of lack of privacy.

This situation makes it easier for process servers and investigators to find people who they are trying to serve with legal documents. For example, I recently had accepted a service for a defendant. The client, however, did not have the defendant's address. I conducted a search for the defendant utilizing my subscription-based, people-locator service. The results of that search yielded nothing in the defendant's name. Had this situation occurred five years ago, I might have been stumped.

Today, however, we live in "social media" world; a world where, it seems, just about everybody is on-line and sharing everything from their latest trip to the coffeehouse, to what they watched on TV the night before.

I began a search for the defendant on all of the prominent social media networks and found loads of personal data on Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter. It was fairly easy to match her name, and contact information via the social media networks.

Still, the missing bit of information was her address. So, I sent her a message using the personal interests she listed, and after several exchanges, she revealed that she was an insurance agent. I then searched the public records and found her business address. She was personally served the next morning.

This brings me back to how the rise of social media sites are affecting the service of process in the world today.

As more and more social media sites arise, and as more and more people log-in, follow, and "friend" each other on these sites, the opportunity to find people who may otherwise be “laying low” will increase. With Facebook now boasting 500 million users, and Twitter hovering around 190 million users (to cite but two social media sites), and the vast majority of the users rarely thinking about privacy issues, it does not look like the masses will curtail their appetite to make their personal likes and interests known to the world; at least not until such time as there is a reversal in the outlook towards, and interest in, social media.

All current social media growth indicators suggest that is not likely in the foreseeable future.

Process Service Network, a legal support firm in the Los Angeles, CA area, has developed a worldwide network of process servers and private investigators. They have been international service of process specialists since 1978 and have handled over 1 million cases since that time.

Process Service Network can be found at http://www.processnet1.com/ or email at processnet@sbcglobal.net

The Standard Governing Expert Witness Testimony

Expert witnesses are routinely utilized in civil court cases to help one side obtain a favorable outcome. Their testimony is often the key factor in winning, or losing, the case. An expert is a person with “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge."

For many years the “Frye” case was the standard used to determine that evidence could be admitted in court only if the thing from which the deduction is made is sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs (Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 [D.C. Cir. 1923] ).

However, in the 1993 Daubert case (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 ), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the standard for admitting expert testimony in federal courts was based on the enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence (1975) which overturned the Frye standard. In effect, the Court established three new rules governing admission of expert testimony in court.

The first was scientific knowledge. This means that the testimony must be scientific in nature, and that the testimony must be grounded in "knowledge." Of course, science does not claim to know anything with absolute certainty; science "represents a process for proposing and refining theoretical explanations about the world that are subject to further testing and refinement." The "scientific knowledge" contemplated by Federal Rules of Evidence 702 had to be arrived at by the scientific method.

Second, the scientific knowledge must assist the trier of fact (jury or judge) in understanding the evidence or determining a fact in issue in the case. To be helpful to the trier of fact, there must be a "valid scientific connection to the pertinent inquiry as a prerequisite to admissibility." As an example, although it is within the purview of scientific knowledge, knowing whether the moon was full on a given night does not typically assist the trier of fact in knowing whether a person was sane when he or she committed a given act.

Third, the Rules expressly provided that the judge would make the threshold determination regarding whether certain scientific knowledge would indeed assist the trier of fact in the manner contemplated by Rule 702. This preliminary assessment can turn on whether something has been tested, whether an idea has been subjected to scientific peer review or published in scientific journals, the rate of error involved in the technique, and even general acceptance, among other things. It focuses on methodology and principles, not the ultimate conclusions generated.

["...Scientific conclusions are subject to perpetual revision. Law, on the other hand, must resolve disputes finally and quickly …"]

The Court stressed that the new standard under Rule 702 was rooted in the judicial process and intended to be distinct and separate from the search for scientific truth. "Scientific conclusions are subject to perpetual revision. Law, on the other hand, must resolve disputes finally and quickly. Rule 702 was intended to resolve legal disputes, and thus had to be interpreted in conjunction with other rules of evidence and with other legal means of ending those disputes. Cross examination within the adversary process is adequate to help legal decision makers arrive at efficient ends to disputes.

How does this affect expert witness testimony by non-scientific witnesses? The Supreme Court later ruled that the standard in Daubert could apply to merely technical evidence or specialized knowledge, provided the testimony of the expert was reliable.

Nelson Tucker of Process Service Network in California a qualified Expert Witness on service of process issues and has authored 3 books on the subject. Process Service Network can be found at http://www.processnet1.com/ or email at processnet@sbcglobal.net

International Service of Process: Why Every Attorney Should Beware

by Nelson Tucker, CEO, Process Service Network

Not only did law school minimize the importance of the laws related to service of process, but they did not even mention international service.

Now, with the world shrinking and the global economy expanding, litigation between parties in the United States and foreign countries is increasing at a substantial rate annually. No doubt, within a short period of time, most U.S. attorneys will be faced with having a foreign defendant served with legal documents. What do you do, then?

Most international disputes arise from such areas as personal injury, trademark and patent infringement, products liability, family law, collections, and real estate matters.

International service of process seems to be a maze until you discover that certain treaties and local laws may apply. The most widely used treaty is the “Hague Service Convention” which outlines the methods of service in a specific country. Another “formal” method of international service is by Letters Rogatory, a cumbersome, expensive and time-consuming method that should be used only as a last resort.

["...in most instances, state law does not apply to service outside the United States…"]

Understanding the procedures for compliance with applicable treaties and local laws will avoid civil and criminal penalties against the attorney and client who violate the law, albeit unknowingly. In most instances, state law does not apply to service outside the United States, so it is essential that the process begin with a complete understanding of the laws of the country involved.

Some nations, such as Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Korea, Argentina and Italy currently outlaw service by private party. Others such as Taiwan, Australia, The Philippines, and Saudi Arabia do not have treaties in force and allow service by an “informal” method, such as by private process server.

Many nations require the court documents to be translated into the official language of that country, while others accept an English version. Translation costs can often exceed the fee for service so it is vital to consult with us prior to filing the case, if possible.

The greatest challenge for most international services is meeting court-established deadlines. An extension of time for completion of service can normally be obtained by providing the court with a proper declaration from the process server.

Although few private process servers understand the rules related to international service, we specialize in serving the needs of clients in foreign markets where the maze is simplified.

Five Things to Consider with International Service of Process:

1. If you plan to enforce the judgment in the foreign country, “formal” service is recommended

2. Only use an experienced and qualified process service company who understands the barriers to service and who can overcome them

3. Allow sufficient time for completion of service as work habits and customs in other nations typically cause delays that we do not experience

4. Price is important but the successful completion of the service in the foreign nation is the ultimate goal

5. Utilize the expertise of an international service of process specialist like us. Feel free to email processnet@sbcglobal.net or call with your questions to 800-417-7623.

Click on www.processnet1.com/internat.htm for specific country

Why Process Servers Cheat

Imagine that you are named as a defendant in a lawsuit but you are never served with your copy of the Summons. When your wages are garnished or your bank account is levied, you will be forced to spend endless hours to correct the problem….all because a process server failed to serve you.

Believe it or not, it happens all the time. For example, New York City has long been known for “sewer service,” a situation in which the process server throws the documents away and files an affidavit of service claiming that you were served. Recent laws in New York have put a halt to such unlawful actions. How could they be so callous? The reasons are typically financial and laziness.

Some process servers are paid as little as $10.00 per document to be served. If they have heavy volume, they can make a very good living at that rate. However, if they have only a few papers to serve and a significant travel distance between each service, some process servers may begin to take short cuts in order to make ends meet.

Other process servers are just plain lazy when it comes to working diligently to completed their assigned services. Since most are independent contractors who arrange their own work schedule, if they do not have strong work ethics they can easily slip into non-productive work habits. That will eventually catch up with them but often the damage is already done.

What many unscrupulous process servers fail to remember is they are “officers of the court” while serving legal documents. Great public trust has been placed on them and they have a duty to follow the law while doing what is right.

Now, don’t get me wrong….most process servers are honest, law abiding, and diligent. Many are former law enforcement officers who are semi-retired. The vast majority of process servers carry out their duties properly.

As I have taught process servers and investigators in my classes, “treat every defendant as you would wish to be treated if you were in their shoes.” If every process server does that, their job will be easier and due process will be served.

A properly trained process server is the key to safety of both the server and protection of the rights of the person being served. Nelson Tucker, CEO of Process Service Network in California, has trained over 1700 process servers in the past 24 years and has authored 3 books on service of process. Process Service Network can be found at http://www.processnet1.com/ or email at processnet@sbcglobal.net

Judicial Assistance Turmoil in Mexico

To say the least, the government of Mexico has stooped to new levels in protecting its citizens and business entities against lawsuits from outside the country.

The Hague Service Convention is the current treaty that was ratified by Mexico which provides the transmittal of legal documents from one country to another. All signatory nations of the Convention are obliged to abide by the terms of the treaty. However, Mexico has become a maverick nation when it comes to such service and has placed every conceivable roadblock in the way of service of process there.

In the past, Mexico followed the provisions of the Convention without problem. However, within the past year the judicial authorities in Mexico have created some interesting obstacles, such as adding new requirements to the transmittal of service request documents, requiring unnecessary translation of specific forms, and requiring additional wording on judicial requests, which are in direct violation of the treaty. The U.S. Department of State has filed objections but they are currently being ignored by the Mexican authorities.

The staff of Process Service Network maintains a diligent, watchful eye on the Central Authority of Mexico and takes the necessary steps to stay abreast of their changes by quickly conforming to their newly-adopted requirements. For example: recently, Mexico required that the specific law that governs service in the court of jurisdiction be cited on the Request for Service Abroad, a practice which Hague authorities in The Netherlands says is not only not a requirement of the Convention, but also exceeds the parameters of the adopted form for use in judicial matters between Hague nations.

What’s the solution for law firms who file suit against Mexican entities? Rather than submitting the required Hague forms (as in the past), and risking a rejection of the service (which is almost guaranteed to happen), finding a knowledgeable international process service firm is a must. Firms such as Process Service Network can avoid any unnecessary delays by submitting properly prepared documents that conform to the current, yet unfair, practices of the government of Mexico.

Process Service Network can be found at http://www.processnet1.com/ or email at processnet@sbcglobal.net .