Showing posts with label process service. Show all posts
Showing posts with label process service. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 3, 2012

The 3 Toughest Process Services I Ever Made


Most people think of process serving as dangerous, clandestine, and done in an unscrupulous manner as typically depicted in the movies.  In general, nothing could be further from the truth.  It is, if done right, quite easy and non-threatening to both the person being served and the process server.

After 33 years as a process server, I have seen it all.  From serving top celebrities to heads-of-state, I have “enjoyed” some pretty interesting service assignments.  Not all were simple and some were quite dangerous – each of them were rewarding after being completed.

Service of process on celebrities is an interesting procedure since most of them are difficult to serve.  They often have employees and security personnel who shield them from the public.  I have served Michael Jackson, Germaine Jackson, Wolfgang Puck, Eric Estrada (Chips), Brittany Spears, Dean Martin, Jackie Mason, and other lesser-knowns.

Serving celebrities is nothing compared to having to serve a head-of-state or other high profile individual.  I have served, or had served, Muammar Gaddafi, former ruler of Libya, Sheik Issa bin Zayed al Nahyan, brother of the Crown Prince of UAE , Khalia bin Laden, brother of Osama bin Laden, Imelda Marcos, former President of The Philippines.  Some were extremely difficult while others were quite easy.

Tough Service #1:

Of the 3 toughest services I have ever completed, serving the Sheik Issa had the most potential danger.  In 2009, I was contracted to serve the Sheik at his office in Dubai.  I was paid handsomely, including first-class airfare and luxury hotel, to complete the service.  I left Los Angeles on Monday evening and returned home on Friday morning of the same week – a trip around the world in 4 days!

It was an interesting case, to say the least, and involved the alleged murder of a servant of the Sheik which was caught on video.  The Sheik’s assistant misplaced the video and was thought to have sold it or concealed it for future use against the Sheik.  He was imprisoned, tortured, and eventually escaped using his contacts within the government.  He made his way back to the U.S. and filed a civil suit against the Sheik for 4 billion dollars.  The lawsuit had to be served and I was fortunate, or maybe not so, to receive the assignment.

I was given the business address of the Sheik, and after a good night sleep in Dubai, I took a taxi to the address which was located in one of the numerous high-rise office buildings along Sheik Zayed Road.  My driver waited out front while I went inside to make the service.  The only problem was the Sheik had moved his office.  Later in the day I found the new address and took a second taxi to the location.  Unfortunately, my driver would not wait and left me there to fend for myself in getting back to the hotel.

I knew that the Sheik’s newest project was building a new city-within-a-city in Dubai.  It was to include residential units, stores and office buildings – a self-contained city.  When I went inside the offices, I observed a model of the proposed city and pretended to be intently interested.  A pleasant male employee came over to greet me and asked if he could assist.  I said, without hesitation, “Yes, I’m here to see Sheik Issa.” The worst possible reply was immediate, “I’m sorry but the Sheik is out of town and will not return until early next week. Did you have an appointment?”  My heart dropped! My flight back to the states was scheduled for that evening and I could not wait until some unknown date without an assurance that I would actually be able to meet with the Sheik.  I made an instant decision to complete the assignment by substituted service.

I was invited into a private office where the employee, the Sheik’s assistant, gave me his business card.  We discussed the pending urban development project and I found the right time to change the subject and advise him that, although I was there to investigate the possibility of opening a business in the complex, I had also been given legal documents directed to the Sheik.  He politely accepted them, looked them over and returned to the subject of future business involving the commercial project.  After our discussions concluded, I left and walked down the street in desperate search of a taxi.  Several sped by, most were empty, and I became increasingly concerned that employees of the Sheik would come out of the building and do who knows what.  Even worse was the sudden fear of government officials being called to arrest me.  After several minutes of anxiety, a taxi stopped and took me back to the hotel.

There were no incidents following the service although when I arrived at the airport, I was concerned that somehow my identity had been discovered and that I may not make it out of the country.  I arrived home just 4 short days after beginning the trip and all ended well – except the civil suit was eventually dismissed.  I had done my job.

Less than a month later, an article appeared in the New York Times describing the case and the attorney for the plaintiff, who had hired me, said “Tucker has balls of steel.”  I took that as a compliment.

Tough Service #2:

Brothers Michael and Jermaine Jackson were being served with a civil lawsuit.  Another process server had tried on numerous occasions to serve them and even used a stake-out for several days – all with no success.  I was eventually hired based on a recommendation from one of my clients.

I had served Germaine previously in a divorce case and knew that I could sub-serve his agent.  However, my client insisted on personal service so I quoted a rate accordingly.  During the afternoon and evening hours, it was common for one of two limousines to leave and return to the gated house.  The problem was you could not see through the tinted glass to know who was inside.

When all else failed, I went to the neighbor next door and showed my badge and advised that I was attempting service on the Jackson brothers.  The neighbor did not get along well with the Jacksons due to the late night noise at the residence that often caused problems.  She gave me details as to which vehicle was used by each brother and the days and times they typically left the compound.

I waited outside the gate and when it opened, I immediately walked inside the compound and approached the driver of the limo with my badge out.  He rolled down the window and I advised him that I had legal documents for Michael and Jermaine. He motioned for me to go towards the rear of the car and when the window came down, there were both of the brothers.  Jermaine took the documents but Michael kept looking away through the passenger side window. There was no question as to who the world-famous celebrity was!

Tough Service #3:

In the early 2000’s, Britney Spears was a hot entertainer.  She lived in a gated complex in the Hollywood Hills with no intercom at the entrance.  She, too, used a limo to leave and return to the house.

I went to her website and found that she was scheduled to perform at a free mid-day concert at the Nokia Theater in Hollywood. I arrived 2 hours before and security was tight. I maintained a low profile, waiting for the opportunity to catch her as she was coming to the stage.  It soon became evident that service would not be possible with so much law enforcement and private security present.

Using my best judgment and assessment of the situation, I developed a plan. I waiting until just before she was coming to the stage and paid a young man $20.00 to advise the security chief that a man on the other side of the crowd was planning on serving Britney with legal documents when she came on-stage.  All of the security personnel quickly rushed to that area and I was free to hand her the service documents when she came through the walkway….and, I did!  She smiled as she thought she was signing an autograph as I told her what the documents actually were.  Job done!
Process serving is always interesting, but rarely dangerous, if you know how to think on your feet and outsmart the person you are serving.

Monday, December 5, 2011

The Biggest Mistake Attorneys & Paralegals Make!

(when it comes to International service of process)

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.

[So, what is the most common mistake that legal professionals make?  It is getting the wrong information from unreliable sources. ]

Times have changed and as the world shrinks and the global economy expands, the need for international process service has multiplied in recent years.  Attorneys in every discipline have had, or soon will have, the prospect of serving a defendant or witness in a foreign country.  When that occasion arises, get ready for the possibility of some serious errors that will delay the case, or worse, cause it to be dismissed! 

So, what is the most common mistake that legal professionals make?  It is getting the wrong information from unreliable sources.  Those untrustworthy sources include (believe it, or not) the U.S. Department of State, online postings, and process servers who are not qualified to answer questions about international service of process.  Please allow me to address each of those without seeming self-serving. 

The State Department is, to say the least, a bureaucracy filled with employees who have limited knowledge of issues outside their own narrow expertise.  If you do not believe that, just try communicating with the department on a specific issue.  Now, do not get me wrong, there are some extremely capable people there who are hidden away from public contact. They understand the ins-and- outs of international service issues – I know because I supply updates to them on specific changes in foreign countries as they become available to me through personal knowledge or my contact abroad.  The State Department’s website is often outdated and occasionally has erroneous information that is construed by an unknowing eye as fact. 

The second problem area faced by legal professionals is online postings by individuals, organizations, groups and corporations.  For example, a Google search for “Service of Process International” will provide you with websites on the first page (we are usually there, as well) that have inaccurate, misleading, and false information.  Blogs are full of information which, if followed, could result in civil and criminal prosecution against the attorney who arranges for the service.  That topic was handled in my blog in October 2011.  Bad information leads to bad results.  Be careful! 

The final category of misinformation comes from process servers who are not qualified to answer questions or provide guidance on international service issues.  Always ask the process service firm two questions: 1) “How long have you been in business?” and 2) “How long have you specialized in international service of process?”  Ask for proof of both in order to insure that you are dealing with a reputable and qualified firm.

In summary, call us and ask those questions, You'll be glad you did!

Friday, October 28, 2011

Process Serving in the 21st Century

If you own a process service firm, this is not your grandfather’s business!  The good ‘ole days of banging on doors and slapping defendants in the chest with service papers, as portrayed in the movies, are gone – thankfully, forever.

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.               

The courts eventually relaxed this harsh procedure and simply ordered that the Sheriff deliver a Summons to the defendant, which required him to appear in court. The defendant was, therefore, "summoned" to court. 

In the United States, process serving was originally a function that was performed by the local Constable or Sheriff. They were an authority figure with the full power of the law. Even today, in some areas of the United States, only government officials may serve legal documents.               

Eventually, private process servers were permitted to serve legal documents. They were required to be of "highest moral character" with unimpeachable ethical standards. As a way of proving that service had been completed, they were required to bring back a piece of the defendant's clothing.               

Later, a written document entitled "Proof of Service" or Affidavit of Service was developed to indicate who was served and the method of service.               

No one has been able to clearly define when the first “private” process service began. By the 1950's, a few were in business, primarily in the largest cities. Today, they are everywhere. 

So, what methods for service exist today that were not available in the early days?  For starters, private process servers (those authorized by state laws) have more authority and are allowed more discretion than in the past. For example, in California, Registered Process Servers are allowed to enter guard-gated communities for the purpose of serving documents and they are allowed to trespass on private property while in the act of serving.  In all states, process servers are allowed to use ruses to complete a service, as long as it does not violate the law. 

Most highly competent process servers today utilize search tools which can save them time and money.  Prior to attempting service, Google Earth is a great (free) research tool to determine whether a service address is a residence or business location.  Obviously, if it is a business, an evening attempt would be a waste of time.  It also gives an indication, in advance, of the type of neighborhood. 

There are some very effect tools available to process servers to assist in locating a defendant’s address.  My favorites are TLO and Merlin Data, but there are many others that are excellent.  Avoid public access websites that charge for a public records search which are often full of outdated and confusing information. 

Some innovative techniques utilized by experienced servers include “notices” which are left on the door of a defendant who is evading service.  The notice advises as to what actions will result if they do not contact the process server to arrange for acceptance of the service. Adverse actions may include service at their place of employment, stake-out of their home, investigation costs to locate them, and other expenses which may be added to the judgment.  It makes it clear that it is in the best interest of the defendant to accept service rather than delay the inevitable which will add financial liability to the case against them. 

Social media is a tool that is often overlooked.  With the advent of Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter and many others, it is becoming easier to find a defendant whose address or whereabouts is unknown. It requires that a process server set up a dummy account with these websites that allows for communication with people without disclosing the identity or occupation of the process server.  It is amazing how much information defendants will disclose to a total stranger on social networks. 

Networking with other process servers and investigators is a way to expand your process service business.  I regularly consult with newer process servers and private investigators who tell me right away the area they cover and where they will not go.  I typically give them a long, hard stare and ask the magical question, “Why?”  In other words, why do they limit themselves to a local area, or why do they not do stake-outs, or why do they not serve some types of documents?  The answer is always the same: “I’ve never done it that way.”  If you do not offer a complete package that every attorney would need which is related to service of process, you are selling yourself short.  The solution?  Partner with other qualified legal support professionals who perform a service that you do not offer or who cover an area beyond your own.  It’s called networking! 

Marketing your process service business takes skill and professionalism.  You may be able to do it yourself or find that professional help will allow you to concentrate on what you do best.  Yellow page advertising is a thing of the past; internet marketing of your services is vital to your success in the 21st Century.  There are some excellent books in print on marketing your process service and investigation services in today’s marketplace.
So, bringing it all together, how does a process server find the innovations and new tools needed to be successful?  One of the ways is to visit www.processnet1.com and see the books available or to see what is available at www.pimall.com.
Process Service University was formed to help both new and experienced process servers and private investigators to learn new “tricks of the trade.”  Every aspect of the service of process profession is covered in a flexible learning environment.  Details can be found at www.ProcessServiceUniversity.com
Process serving is an old profession with many new ways to get the job done easier, faster and more profitable.

***

Be sure to bookmark  this article for future reference.

Monday, October 3, 2011

Patent Law Changes Good for American Lawyers

Congress recently passed and President Obama signed into law the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act after more than six years of legislative efforts to reform the existing patent laws.

The act represents the most comprehensive and substantial patent legislation since the Patent Act of 1952. The act changes significantly the processes for both obtaining and litigating patents. Of particular note for patent prosecutors, the act changes the United States from a “first-to-invent” to a “first-to-file” patent system, eliminates interference proceedings, and expands the scope of prior act under the statute.
Entirely new procedures for post-grant review have been put in place, phasing out inter partes re-examinations and replacing them with post-grant review and revised inter partes review processes. In addition, the act establishes a special transitional post-grant review process for business-method patents.  

So what does all of this mean for the U.S. attorney?  The new law includes many important changes for patent litigators, including new rules affecting joinder of parties in patent infringement actions, changes to the false marking provisions, new statutory provisions regarding advice of counsel, and expansion of the prior user defense. 

The act makes it much easier for U.S. attorneys to litigate patent infringement claims against foreign nationals and corporations. 

Details and full text can be viewed at: Leahy-Smith America Invents Act.

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Process Serving is a Verb

What I am about to say is something you already knew, but it is presented in a different way for your consideration.

“Process serving” is the procedure employed to give legal notice to a party (such as a defendant) of a court or administrative body's exercise of its jurisdiction over that party so as to enable that party to respond to the proceeding before the court.  Verb” is derived from the Latin verbum meaning word that  conveys an action (bring, read, walk, run, learn, serve).  Most people understand both. So, why even raise the point that process serving is a verb?
A verb is usually something you DO – not something you think about or intend to do.  Process serving is an act that results in the legal documents actually being delivered to the appropriate party.  That requires action on the part of the process server.
Some process servers procrastinate about the task of completing a service of process.  That results in slow service and can jeopardize a case if deadlines are not met. The process server may cause liability to themselves and their client by delaying the attempts at service.
Here are 3 reasons process servers fail to meet the expectations of their clients:

1.       They do not have a strategy to get their assignments completed.  Too many people in business (and yes, process serving is a business) confuse operations with strategy.  Operational excellence is focused on doing the same things your competitors are doing – only better.  Strategy, on the other hand, is focused on being different than competitors. Process servers who understand the difference and take the steps to ensure that their strategies and operations are in alignment become the leaders in their profession.

2.       They are unwilling to say “no”. Since most process servers have not figured out what makes their business different from the others, they do not know when to say “no” and what to say “no” to. They seek to take in every possible assignment without regard to whether they can complete it correctly, timely, and profitably.  In other words, the money outweighs the ability to get the job done in certain cases.  If they do not have the resources to complete the assignment properly, they will likely have a disgruntled client in the end.

3.       Failure to align daily activities with strategy.   A clear and different strategy means performing different activities. For  example, if you normally spend 3 hours per day reading email, answering personal Facebook notes, and reading the sports page, you may be locked into a pattern that will soon leave you behind your competitors. If, on the other hand, you have a clear strategy of what you wish to accomplish and achieve, you will be forced to alter your activities to be in harmony with your strategy.

Process serving is a vital function of the legal system.  Those who excel are those with a strategy and purpose that is in alignment with the activities that they perform on a daily basis. Process serving is a verb because it requires action combined with a strategic intent.

Nelson Tucker is CEO of ProcessService Network, LLC in the Los Angeles area where his firm has provided legal support services since 1978.  He has authored 3 books on service of process and has personally trained over 1700 process servers and investigators nationwide.  Nelson may be reached by email at processnet@sbcglobal.net or by visiting his website at www.processnet1.com.  He is active with the American Bar Association, Los Angeles County Bar Association, Beverly Hills Bar Association, and the San Fernando Valley Bar Association.

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Service By Mail is Illegal!

While the headline may not be entirely true, it is accurate when it comes to international service of process. When you keep in mind that the purpose of service of process is to give actual notice to another party of a lawsuit, the standard must be high as to the method of such service.

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

It is easy for an attorney to unknowingly violate the laws of a foreign nation when serving legal documents abroad. Many lawyers do not realize that some countries have significant restrictions related to service of process. The consequences can be serious, including civil and criminal penalties.

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

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

Monday, April 25, 2011

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

Friday, April 22, 2011

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

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

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 .

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

The Ultimate Dilemma: Obtaining Jurisdiction Over a Foreign Defendant

Making the right decision about how to obtain jurisdiction over a foreign defendant can be a daunting challenge. There are so many issues to be confronted including available service of process methods, laws of the foreign country where the defendant resides, satisfying local court requirements, and post-judgment collection. Even though the challenge may seem overwhelming, the process can be simplified by hiring a competent international service of process professional.

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….“]
According to Scott Spooner, International Specialist with Process Service Network in the Los Angeles area, “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 on services coming from outside their jurisdiction.”

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.”
However, Mexico is a signatory to the Hague Service Convention and in doing so agreed to follow the terms of the treaty. They are also a signer of the Inter-American Convention on Letters Rogatory which is a separate treaty. They cleverly combined the requirements of both treaties, thus making service there more difficult for foreign attorneys.

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 advantage of using informal methods is the speed of the completion time, although not as fast as service typically takes within the United States. While the service itself may take only a few days or weeks to complete, the return of the proof of service often takes more than a month. A common delay is caused by the lack of notary publics in some regions who are needed to authenticate a proof of service. Relaxed work habits and cultural practices also may lead to delays in a successful completion of the assignment. Weather can also be a factor in certain regions where travel is impaired by snow, flooding or other natural disasters.
Further delays, in some regions, are caused by the necessity for the process server to obtain “permission” to serve legal documents that originate outside their country by paying “fees” to local law enforcement officials (5).

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:

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

There are striking similarities with the practice of law by an attorney and service of process by a professional process server. Let us examine what the two professions have in common.

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 American Bar Association (ABA) is considering proposals to accredit foreign law schools in what would be a closely-watched development in the international legal education market, writes The National Law Journal. The recommendation has come from a committee of law professors, lawyers, judges and law deans set up in June to examine whether foreign law schools should be allowed to seek ABA accreditation. The ABA is already responsible for accrediting US 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

The shrinking global economy has created an increase in the number of cases where foreign companies “knock-off” the patented and trademarked products of their rightful owner. Such infringements lead to lost revenues and profits by the company that owns the rights to the product or invention.

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

When the American Bar Association (ABA) convenes its Annual Meeting in San Francisco on August 5-7, 2010, attorneys from across America will join together to learn, exchange ideas, and enjoy the City by the Bay.

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