Tuesday, January 3, 2012
The 3 Toughest Process Services I Ever Made
Monday, December 5, 2011
The Biggest Mistake Attorneys & Paralegals Make!
That’s a pretty provocative headline – attorneys and paralegals don’t make mistakes, do they? In the case of international service of process, mistakes are the norm but can be easily avoided.
Law schools forgot to teach about serving civil process on defendants out of the country so it’s not the lawyer’s fault that they do not have the expertise when it comes to such service. Paralegals, too, were not taught about a topic that may seem innocuous since, until recently, there was not much demand for such knowledge.
In summary, call us and ask those questions, You'll be glad you did!
Friday, October 28, 2011
Process Serving in the 21st Century
A brief look at the history of process serving tells us that the service of a Summons originated in England, where the court would order the Sheriff to arrest the defendant and bring him into court to answer the allegations. This was an obvious hardship on defendants, especially when plaintiffs failed to prove their case.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Patent Law Changes Good for American Lawyers
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Process Serving is a Verb
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Service By Mail is Illegal!
There are currently two major treaties in effect that deal with cross-border judicial issues such as process service - The Hague Service Convention (“Hague”) and the Inter-American Convention on Letters Rogatory. Both are treaties between signatory countries that specify the available methods of service. Each signatory country has the ability to file a “reservation” regarding restrictions on how a service may be made within their borders.
All Hague nations currently prohibit service by mail related to a case that is filed in another jurisdiction. Some nations such as Argentina, China, Germany, Japan, and Switzerland take the matter extremely serious by making it a violation of both civil and criminal law to mail legal documents from outside. Germany recent prosecuted a case involving a matter that originated in another country and held the attorney and plaintiff liable for civil damages; criminal charges are pending.
Most nations consider it an infringement on their sovereignty to serve any legal document by mail. According to the U.S. Department of State, “Germany made a declaration objecting to service under Article 10 by allowing service exclusively by an agent of the German Central Authority. Any other methods of service, including attempts at service by mail, are considered illegal in Germany and an affront to its judicial sovereignty.”
In summary, while attorneys may be tempted to save expenses by serving foreign defendants by mail, extreme caution must be exercised to avoid civil damages and criminal prosecution against both the attorney and their client.
Process Service Network, located in the Los Angeles area, has been a specialist in international and hard-to-serve cases for the past 33 years. Their worldwide team of service professionals can answer questions about international service of process and handle service in any country. They may be contacted at processnet@sbcglobal.net or 800-417-7623.
Friday, May 6, 2011
How Lawyers Violate the Law in Foreign Service
The Hague Service Convention is the primary treaty between participating nations related to service of process. Some nations have made reservations to the Convention when they became a signatory to the treaty prohibiting service by any means other than service through their Central Authority. The most common prohibition is against the use of private process servers.
These Hague nations prohibit service by private process server: Bulgaria, China, Czech Republic, Egypt, Germany, Norway, Slovenia, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Turkey and Venezuela.
China, Germany, and Switzerland consider service that is in violation of the Hague Service Convention an infringement on their sovereignty and impose criminal penalties against all parties in the service chain, including the plaintiff, plaintiff’s attorney, and process server. In addition, civil penalties may be imposed on the same parties for violating the terms of the treaty.
The solution is simple: Consult with a reputable international process service company for guidance as to applicable laws in the country where service is being contemplated. They will keep the attorney, and their client, in safe waters.
Nelson Tucker is CEO of Process Service Network, LLC that specializes in international service of process. He can be contacted at processnet@sbcglobal.net or through the firm’s website at http://www.processnet1.com/
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
4 Steps to Successful Service Abroad
They forgot to teach potential lawyers in law school all of the details about service of process in foreign nations. Correction: They forgot to teach anything about foreign service in almost all law schools in the U.S. The result is not knowing where to turn when an attorney has a case involving a defendant in another country.
Here’s how to analyze the situation when filtering through the maze of service of process outside the country:
Step 1: Do your research …. Google, Yahoo, etc. when searching for information on service in a specific nation. Hint: Be specific in your search, i.e. if service is needed in Egypt, search by “service of process Egypt” rather than “international process server.” Top ranking is important but watch for companies that do not specialize in international service of process. Look for process service firms that have a record of longevity and a strong reference list. Avoid companies that have international process service as a secondary function. Example, translation companies that also offer process service as a sideline; they typically ‘farm out” the service assignments and do not have full knowledge or control over the service.
Step 2: Ask questions …. Send an email requesting confirmation of web-based fee quotes. After you receive a reply, place a call to the responder to insure that a live body is on the other end. It is amazing how many top Google-ranked process servers are actually based outside the U.S. That should be a concern since there is no accountability if they fail to perform the promised service. Ask for referrals!
Step 3: Understand the promise …. Don’t take for granted how the service will be completed. Ask for specifics as to how the process works, time frame, possible obstacles. Determine, up front, if there are hidden costs and who is responsible for errors made in the process. Get everything in writing (email).
Step 4: Relax …. If you assign the service to a reliable process service firm you should expect that they will handle your assignment correctly and timely.
Keep in mind that service of process in another country will not be as efficient or as speedy as it is here in the U.S. due to customs, conflicting laws, and local restrictions on process servers. Your process service firm should be sensitive to court deadlines and provide an affidavit regarding the status of the service, at no charge, upon your request.
Nelson Tucker is CEO of Process Service Network, LLC that specializes in international service of process. He can be contacted at processnet@sbcglobal.net or through the firm’s website at http://www.processnet1.com/
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
How Facebook and Social Media Are Affecting Service of Process
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
Monday, April 25, 2011
International Service of Process: Why Every Attorney Should Beware
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
Friday, April 22, 2011
Why Process Servers Cheat
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
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Judicial Assistance Turmoil in Mexico
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 .
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
The Ultimate Dilemma: Obtaining Jurisdiction Over a Foreign Defendant
Step one is to determine the final end result of the case, i.e. do you intend to attach assets of the defendant in the foreign nation? The answer to that question will determine the method used to obtain jurisdiction. For example, if the defendant is the only known party in the case, it will be necessary to utilize service of process methods which will result in an enforceable judgment. On the other hand, if the defendant is merely being served in order to satisfy court rules that all defendants must be served - and it is not anticipated that this defendant has attachable assets – more options are available in order to obtain jurisdiction.
Most law schools offer very limited, if any, instruction in international service of process. After all, such services were a rarity until recently. And, most attorneys have not had experience in dealing with foreign defendants, thus, may see the process as overwhelming. In contrast, once an attorney has gone through the experience of serving a defendant in a cross-border dispute, the task seems surprisingly simple.
Methods of Service Abroad
There are two basic methods available for service of process upon foreign defendants: 1) formal, and 2) informal. The formal method involves a treaty or use of Letters Rogatory (a request from the local court for judicial assistance by the foreign court) while the informal method utilizes the services of a private process server. There are advantages and disadvantages of both methods, including cost, time frames for completion, and eventual enforceability of the judgment.
Formal Methods of Service
Formal service is accomplished pursuant to the terms of a specific treaty, such as The Hague Service Convention or the Inter-American Convention on Letters Rogatory. The Hague Service Convention (“Hague”) currently has 62 signatory nations while the Inter-American Convention has 19 member nations. The United States is a signatory to both Conventions. The procedures for each treaty are vastly different and seemingly difficult. In reality, both are quite easy to maneuver through once the process is fully understood.
The Hague Service Convention allows for service of process in cross-border disputes, including personal injury, trademark and patent infringement, products liability, family law, collections, and real estate matters. The procedures are specified in the treaty but the practical application of the terms requires advanced knowledge about specific prerequisites of the country where the service will take place, including reservations at the time of the signing of the treaty, laws of the foreign nation, and fluctuating changes in policies of the destination country.
“Hague” service is made by submitting the service documents, along with the proper official request and copies in English as well as copies properly translated into the official language of the country where the documents are to be served. Typically, there are no governmental fees associated with such service; however, a few nations require payment of a “bailiff’s fee (1).
[“It’s amazing how each country has such a vast difference of laws that must be
followed. U.S. attorneys are often frustrated by the myriad of requirements that
some countries impose….“]
Spooner pointed out Mexico as a prime example of a nation whose legal system has gone beyond reason and common sense in imposing unnecessary requirements for service (2). “Mexico attempts to protect its corporations and citizens from legal matters that may eventually result in attachment of assets. They do everything possible to delay service of process in hopes that the case will just go away.”
The form used to transmit service of process pursuant to the Hague Service Convention is the Request for Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents. While the form seems simple and easy to complete, many signatory nations have specific wording and formatting requirements which are not covered in the treaty. The result of an incorrectly filled out request is rejection of the service, by the Central Authority of the foreign nation, often several months after submission.
Service in most nations which are Hague signatories typically takes two to four months, although sometimes faster (3). Seasonal weather issues may delay the service time in certain colder regions. The major delays are caused by governmental and court bureaucracies, local customs and work habits in some areas, and transmittal of the proof of service via postal channels after service has been accomplished.
Service made pursuant to the Hague Service Convention and Letters Rogatory will result in an enforceable judgment in nations which honor post-judgment collections.
Letters Rogatory is a formal process in which the court of jurisdiction makes an official request to the court where the documents are to be served asking for judicial assistance in the service of such documents. The use of Letters Rogatory is largely confined to courts in the Americas since most countries in Asia, Europe and North America utilize the provisions of the Hague Service Convention. Letters Rogatory are also used to obtain evidence outside the nation of jurisdiction (4).
It must be pointed out that service utilizing Letters Rogatory is a cumbersome and time consuming process with delays of up to one year, and sometimes more, due to the diplomatic channels through which the service must flow.
For example, in the United States the court of jurisdiction issues the official request using a pre-designed format. It is then submitted, along with pleadings in English and the language of the destination country, to the U.S. Department of State. Such service must be accompanied by a cashier’s check of $2,275.00 which is referred to as an Embassy fee. The documents are processed at the State Department for approximately two to three months. The delay is caused by the backlog of cases which require Letters Rogatory. They are then sent through diplomatic channels to the U.S. Embassy of the foreign country and eventually delivered to the Central Authority of that nation. They, in turn, assign it to an appropriate local court that arranges for service of the documents upon the defendant. Once the documents are served, the government official who served it, typically called a bailiff, returns the proof of service to the local court and the documents go back in reverse order through the same channels. The proof of service does not, however, get returned to the requesting attorney as is the case with Hague service, but instead, is forwarded directly to the court of jurisdiction.
Unfortunately, in all formal methods of service there is no adequate manner of tracking the status of the service. That is due to the isolation of foreign courts and Central Authorities from private sector law firms. Further, the court filing procedures in many foreign nations does not allow for easy tracking since they often do not use numeric filing systems; some operate on a “first-received, first-completed” system while others file by date of receipt or by case name.
The advantage of utilizing formal methods is the ability to obtain an enforceable judgment. An unenforceable judgment against one defendant does not negate the validity of a judgment against another defendant; it is common to serve some defendants using treaty provisions and others by utilizing informal methods. The disadvantages of formal methods are time delays and costs.
Informal Methods of Service
The most common form of informal service of process is by private process server. Any person who is authorized by the laws of the nation where the documents are to be served may serve legal process, including process servers, investigators, or government officials, such as a Sheriff or Bailiff. In some countries, service by an outside private process server is allowed since many nations do not have process servers and it becomes necessary to use one from a neighboring country.
Countries such as Germany, Japan, Argentina, China, Switzerland and others prohibit service by private party. It is considered to be an infringement of their national sovereignty to use service of process methods which are not prescribed treaty or national law. Such nations as Japan and Germany actively prosecute, both criminally and civilly, such violations.
[“Service by private process servers normally results in a timelier
completion of service than using formal methods.”]
The only disadvantage to utilizing informal methods is the possibility of an unenforceable judgment and the unreliability of private process servers in certain remote areas of the world.
Five Things to Consider with International Service of Process:
• Only use an experienced and qualified process service company who understands the barriers to service and who can overcome them
• Allow sufficient time for completion of service as work habits and customs in other nations typically cause delays that we do not experience
• Price is important but the successful completion of the service in the foreign nation is the ultimate goal
• Utilize the expertise of an international service of process specialist.
Visit www.processnet1.com/internat.htm for specific country information.
*****
(1) China, Canada, Cayman Islands, and the United States are among countries that require a fee.
(2) Mexico also requires Letters Rogatory in addition to Hague forms.
(3) Service in Argentina can take up to 6 to 8 months.
(4) Convention on Taking of Evidence Abroad on Civil or Commercial Matters; Insofar as requests to United States courts are concerned, the use of Letters Rogatory for requesting the taking of evidence has been replaced, in large part, by applications under 28 U.S.C. section 1782.
(5) Mexico is notorious for bribery by government officials in order to get permission to perform such tasks as process service.
Monday, October 25, 2010
International Child Abduction Enforcement Summary
Provided by Process Service Network, LLC
800-417-7623
http://www.processnet1.com/
Introduction
The Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is a multilateral treaty, which seeks to protect children from the harmful effects of abduction and retention across international boundaries by providing a procedure to bring about their prompt return. The "Child Abduction Section" provides information about the operation of the Convention and the work of the Hague Conference in monitoring its implementation and promoting international co-operation in the area of child abduction.
Enforcement
Paramount to the enforcement process is the ability to determine the location of the abducted child at every stage of the proceedings, including pending judicial review, retrieval of the abducted child, and protection after the child has been returned. Where the return order needs to be served upon the respondent before coercive measures may be applied, consideration should be given to the possibility of serving it at the moment that the enforcement officer proceeds to enforcement.
Need for Competent Professionals
Problems can occur when judges, lawyers and other professionals are unfamiliar with the Hague return process. There is merit in a properly trained and educated specialist group of judges, lawyers, and support professionals undertaking this work so as to reduce delays and add integrity to the process.
Cooperative Efforts to Insure Safe Return
A court considering the return of a child should be provided, through the Central Authority or other appropriate channels, with information concerning the protective measures and services available in the requesting State, where this is needed to assist in securing the safe return of the child. To this end, courts are encouraged to make use of national, regional and international judicial networks and liaison judges and to seek the assistance of Central Authorities where appropriate.
Parties Present at Scene of Enforcement
Whoever is responsible for deciding who shall be present at the actual scene of enforcement (e.g., the court, the Central Authority, the enforcement officer) should carefully consider whether the presence of the applicant (parent) is likely to be helpful or whether there is a risk that it might instead complicate matters in the particular case.
Issues Which May Delay Enforcement
* The return order does not specify the exact details of the child’s handover or return, such as how it is to be effected, within what timeframe or the precise location in the State of the habitual residence to which the child should be returned.
* The lack of a response from authorities (including the police, enforcement officers and others involved in enforcement) to a request for enforcement or due to other unexplained delays by authorities when taking certain necessary steps.
• Several levels of legal challenge exist and it is not possible to enforce a return order until these have all been exhausted.
• In some legal systems a specific court order is required for each enforcement attempt.
• In some legal systems different authorizations, decisions and approvals are required before enforcement can take place and a requirement of formal service can cause further unnecessary delays between notice of enforcement and the implementation of enforcement. These authorizations, decisions and/or approvals ordering specific coercive measures, are subject to legal challenges independent of the return order itself, and such a legal challenge suspends enforcement.
• The child objects to being returned despite a return having been ordered and refuses to travel or cooperate.
• The abducting parent takes the child into hiding, either while return proceedings are pending or after a return has been ordered or removes the child to another country. The abducting parent engages in obstructive behavior to delay or avoid enforcement (e.g., refusing to reveal travel plans, changing travel plans, claiming moving difficulties, refusing to sign visa or passport applications).
• Pressure from the public and/or the media, or for fear of creating media interest or involvement.
• The abducting parent cannot re-enter the country of habitual residence (e.g., for immigration reasons or because of a criminal warrant) in a case where he or she is supposed to return with the child.
• Neither party can fund travel arrangements, afford accommodation, or other enforcement costs.
• At the actual scene of enforcement, when confronted with a situation of family crisis, the enforcement officer is not prepared to apply coercive measures.
* No communication is possible between the enforcement officer and the abducting parent and/or the child because of language problems. At the actual scene of enforcement, other actors involved (e.g., professional social workers) are reluctant to co-operate in coercive enforcement.
Solutions
The enforcement of rights in a cross-border family situation may involve many participants, such as the Central Authority, judges, bailiffs, social workers or other professionals. In the interest of an adequate solution to problems with the execution, the exchange of relevant information between the
professionals/bodies involved should be swift and effective.
Detailed information concerning the special circumstances of the case should be available easily to allow a sensitive dealing with the case, where necessary. Especially in cases where an abduction of the child has occurred before, or was threatened or feared by one of the parents, the professionals involved in the enforcement order should have access to background information in addition to the plain facts included in the actual order itself.
Safeguards, such as the surrender of passport or travel documents should be taken into consideration to avoid the risk of abduction. In cross-border contact cases the multinational, multicultural and multilingual backgrounds have to be taken into account and relevant information concerning sensitive matters should be made available to the bodies/professionals involved.
Nelson Tucker is CEO of Process Service Network, LLC, in Winnetka, California. His firm specializes in international service of process. He is an Associate Member of the San Fernando Valley Bar Association and the American Bar Association (ABA) where he serves as a Member of the Section on International Law, and Member of Private International Law Coordinating Committee, International Judicial Affairs Committee, and the U.N. and International Institutions Coordinating Committee.
Friday, September 24, 2010
How Process Serving and Law Firm Practices are Similar
Know the Law
Attorneys spend significant time in law school studying laws and developing conceptual knowledge and legal reasoning. They are trained to know the law, or at a minimum, know how to find applicable laws related to a pending case. That education pays off once they are practicing law and preparing cases.
While most professional process servers do not receive formal training or education, they are held to strict standards of having a full working knowledge of laws related to service of process. Those who take the initiative to learn every possible aspect of the profession, whether formally or self-taught, soon rise to the top and are the most successful in their field.
Follow the Law
Lawyers succeed by understanding the law and applying it to their case. While there are normally two competing sides to every case, there is usually case law that will support either side. That is why we have judges.
Process servers must follow the law in a different way than attorneys. The successful process server must understand the statutory law and the applicable case laws related to the type of service they are performing. There can only be one side and the process server must follow the letter of the law, both statutory and case law.
Look After Client's Interests
Attorneys have a duty to protect the interests of their client and to represent them in the best manner possible, ensuring that they receive all the benefits afforded to them under the law. Their duty includes making sure they communicate with their client effectively and in a timely manner. They must advise their client in a professional manner, keeping their objectivity and understanding of the law in mind at all times when counseling their client on any actions they should take. Further, attorneys have a duty to maintain privileged communications between them and their client, ensuring personal information is closely guarded.
Similarly, a professional process server has a duty to their client (the attorney) to perform the assigned services in a professional manner while following established industry standards and practices. They must also advise their client when the requested assignment violates the law or is not in the best interest of the attorney or his/her client. Example: Attorney assigns a service of process for a hearing whose deadline for service has expired. The process server has a duty to advise the attorney of the discrepancy with the attorney having the final say, provided it does not violate the law.
Win the Case
A lawyer has two primary objectives: 1) represent their client properly, and 2) win the case! That is why they are hired and what their client expects.
A process server has a similar goal: 1) represent the interests of their client, and 2) complete the assignment properly.
Build a Reputation
Successful lawyers become successful by practicing in a manner that satisfies the needs of their clients. Their clients become their best "word of mouth" ambassadors which leads to reputation building in a relatively short period of time. It is the quality of the attorney's work, win or lose, that creates a positive or negative reputation.
There are more process servers today than ever before and some are obviously better than others. The number of years of experience and the high quality of work product lead to the building of a positive reputation that makes a process server successful. Highly sought after process servers reach their level of success based on doing exceptional work that meets the needs of their clients.
While attorneys and process servers cannot be compared on a professional scale, the similarities of their responsibilities lead to the conclusion that both are vitally important to the legal process.
Nelson Tucker is CEO of Process Service Network, LLC in the Los Angeles area. He may be reached by email at processnet@sbcglobal.net or by visiting their website at www.processnet1.com. Nelson is active with the American Bar Association, Los Angeles County Bar Association, and the San Fernando Valley Bar Association.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
ABA Considers Plan to Accredit Foreign Law Schools
The committee cited an earlier ABA report's conclusion that state supreme courts and Bar associations are under pressure to make decisions about admitting foreign lawyers as the legal profession becomes increasingly globalized. "Such an expansion would provide additional guidance for state supreme courts when lawyers trained outside the U.S. seek to be allowed to sit for a U.S. Bar examination," the committee said in its report. The committee cited figures from the National Conference of Bar Examiners that between 4,000 and 5,000 foreign-trained law graduates each year take the Bar exam in the U.S.; most of them sit for the exams in California or New York.
If the ABA decides not to expand accreditation, and states are forced to make their own decisions about foreign-trained lawyers, some lawyers with "less reliable training" than graduates of U.S. law schools will be admitted to the Bar, the committee said. Additionally, there will be a lack of consistency among states as to how foreign-trained lawyers are admitted.
"If we believe that the American legal education model is the 'gold standard' for legal education worldwide and that well-trained lawyers are critical to the global economy, then a willingness to expand accreditation to schools embracing the American model is an appropriate way to improve the training of lawyers globally and contribute to the modern economy and the international legal profession," the committee said.
However, the committee did cite potential downsides to accrediting international law schools, including the expansion of practice opportunities for foreign-trained lawyers with no reciprocal benefit for U.S. law school graduates. The committee said that the cost of the overseas accreditation would be borne by the foreign law schools rather than the ABA.
ABA spokeswoman Nancy Slonim said that the committee's nine-page report has been sent to state supreme court justices, the leadership of the ABA, deans of ABA-approved law schools and other interested parties. Relevant parties have until October 15, 2010, to submit comments, she said.
There are a number of reasons why U.S. clients might want a foreign-educated law graduate available in the U.S. to help them. In 2008, for example, the U.S. had exported almost $2 trillion of goods and services and imported $2.5 trillion in goods and services. In 2007, which is the most recent year for which statistics are available, there were $20 trillion in foreign-owned assets in the U.S. and $17 trillion in U.S.-owned assets abroad. Moreover, this international trade is not confined to the largest U.S. states. Every state in the country except Hawaii exported more than $1 billion of goods and services in 2008, and many of them had eight-figure exports. Stay with me….
Because many of the transactions underlying these statistics undoubtedly involved both foreign and domestic lawyers, it should come as no surprise to learn that there is a significant amount of international trade in legal services. For example, in 2007, which is the most recent year for which this data is available, the U.S. exported $6.4 billion in legal services and imported $1.6 billion. Moreover, these statistics do not take into account international legal services trade by affiliates.
In summary, as the globalization of the legal profession materializes, it will be critical to law students in both the U.S. and all foreign countries to have a proper foundation in international law. That is alarmingly lacking in most law schools.
Nelson Tucker is CEO of Process Service Network, LLC in the Los Angeles area. His firm specializes in international service of process and foreign legal issues. He is an Associate Member of the American Bar Association. His website is www.processnet1.com and he can be reached at processnet@sbcglobal.net.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Trademark and Patent Infringement Cases on the Rise
According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, there has been a 76% increase in claims for trademark and patent infringement in the past 10 years. The biggest violators are based in China, Indonesia, Taiwan and Mexico.
U.S. and Canadian corporations have continually attempted to protect their interests by filing lawsuits against illegal foreign manufacturers and the number of lawsuits is on the rise. Law firms routinely seek redress in the court of jurisdiction but are often thwarted by the laws of the foreign nation. Among the challenges are enforcement of judgment, fly-by-night businesses abroad going out of business or changing their name, and delaying tactics by foreign courts, e.g. Mexico.
The Mexican government has recently created serious roadblocks to service of process in Mexico by imposing new requirements for service upon their corporate entities. Even though Mexico is a signatory to the Hague Service Convention, they have placed additional restrictions which are in technical violation of the treaty. To date, no other signatory to the Convention has filed an objection with the Hague, thus, the problem persists.
Process Service Network, a legal support firm in the Los Angeles, CA area, has developed a strategy for overcoming the obstacles created by the government of Mexico. This strategy involves fast turnaround of service documents to remain one step ahead of the Mexican Central Authority. The staff at Process Service Network has been specialists in international service of process since 1978 and has handled over 1,600 trademark and patent infringement cases since that time.
Process Service Network can be found at http://www.processnet1.com/ or email at processnet@sbcglobal.net
Monday, July 12, 2010
American Bar Association Annual Meeting to Benefit Attorneys
Over 220 CLE programs that will help improve professional skills and expertise. There will be abundant opportunities to network with lawyers and judges from around the world. The meeting will also feature the world’s largest legal EXPO, providing an array of goods and services pertaining to the practice of law. Process Service Network is proud to be an exhibitor during the event.
Everyone knows that San Francisco boasts a great vacation experience, including sightseeing, food, shopping, and other attractions all within walking distance. The cool summer temperatures and low humidity provide one of the nation’s best locations to spend some extra time before or after the Annual Meeting. Hotel rates are surprisingly affordable during this peak tourist season.
The Annual Meeting’s flexible format allows participants to customize their own schedule and have the full benefits of the location. It will be a great time for everything the ABA and the Bay Area have to offer.
Process Service Network can be found at http://www.processnet1.com/ or email at processnet@sbcglobal.net