The Suffolk County Legislature has adopted a local law to license all process servers who serve process for a fee within the County of Suffolk. This new law-which takes effect July 1, 2002-is more stringent than the licensing law in the City of New York, which has been in effect for the past quarter century. Actually, depending on one's point of view, Suffolk's new law is as good - or as bad - as any licensing law in the country. It requires process servers to have E&O coverage of $250,000, which tops all other insurance requirements nationwide. Nevada requires $200,000 liability; Oregon requires $100,000 E&O for service of garnishments only; and the City of St. Louis requires licensed process servers to have $100,000 E&O. The Suffolk law also requires applicants to complete a one-day educational course on the laws of service and to take and pass a written examination. The entry fee is pretty steep-$400 for the first two years-and it contains no grandfather clause.
New York State has a population of over 18 million. The two most populous counties-the five boroughs of Greater New York City (8 million) and Suffolk County (1.4 million)-are home to over half its citizens. And squeezed in between them is Nassau County, with a population of 1.3 million.
Some members of the New York State Professional Process Servers Association have mixed emotions about this legislation. While the cost of becoming licensed in both NYC and Suffolk County will be a burden to most process servers who serve in both counties, it's a short plank they'll be walking when other New York counties start enacting their own brand of licensing. It may be that the only way this train can be stopped is to have the state legislature enact a statewide licensing statute.
Texas Judges to Issue Statewide Standing Orders
At the state summit meeting this past weekend in Tampa, FL, Lee Russell of Dallas reported that judges in some Texas counties will be issuing "standing orders" that are valid in all 254 Texas counties. Currently, such orders are not valid outside the county in which they are issued.
Georgia PI Bill Opposed by NAPPS
I discovered on January 29 that a bill (HB 1065) had been introduced in the Georgia Legislature on January 18 to permit private detectives to serve process without special appointment. I called the Judiciary Committee and learned the bill went through the House with lightning speed. Testimony had been taken on the bill the previous day and it was passed out of committee on a 8-to-6 vote. I was told only two witnesses appeared-a private detective who spoke in favor of the bill and a Fulton County judge who spoke in opposition. The bill was on its way to the Senate.
This is a reprise of a failed amendment which was stuck on a 2000 mailing bill (HB 708) by a NAPPS member. The amendment would have permitted licensed private detectives to serve process without special appointment. Member Paul Tamaroff of Atlanta appeared at a hearing and spoke against both the mailing bill and the amendment. The amendment was defeated but the mailing bill was subsequently passed in watered down condition as result of an amendment proposed by Mr. Tamaroff.
By February 12, the scheduled date for a hearing in the Senate, Mr. Tamaroff had gathered support from several judges, other process servers, and the lobbyist for the Sheriff's Association. He presented to the Committee an impressive 7-page Position Paper that vigorously articulated NAPPS' opposition to the bill. In summary, he made the argument that to turn over process serving to the private detectives would be detrimental to the livelihood of hundreds of private professional process servers throughout the state and would create a monopoly of the industry by private detectives, as it would become more difficult for process servers to obtain permanent appointments. Moreover, there would be a confusing division of responsibility in which some process servers would be regulated by the courts, while others would be regulated by a licensing board. It was pointed out that nothing in the private detective law suggests that private detectives engage in, much less are qualified to engage in, the process serving industry.
The bottom line is that the Senate has taken the bill off calendar and prospects for victory now look much better than they did a week ago.
A New Face For www.napps.org
The NAPPS website has had a total facelift. It is now more functional and user-friendly-and it has more stuff. Take a moment and check it out.
The database, from which the member listings are compiled, has had a complete overhaul. You won't see the database but it makes our job much easier and the records more accurate. Previously, we had no historical memory in the database. If we posted info about your current dues payment, the info about your prior dues payment was automatically deleted. No more. That information remains in the database and can be easily accessed without having to pull the member's file or do other manual searches.
We have put on a variety of forms in PDF format. These can be printed out and used. Before long we will make some of these forms interactive, so that members can fill in the blanks and then print out a finished copy.
The Request for Service form, a NAPPS form devised in 1984, has been put up for both members and the public to use. At the top of the form are two boxes, which should be checked to indicate whether the requesting party is either a member or a non-member. The Board approved putting this form on the site because it would be to a member's advantage to have a non-member use a proper form to make an assignment. It should be pointed out, however, that non-members do not get the privileges of a member in having their complaints arbitrated by the Arbitration and Grievance Committee.
A section of the website will be devoted to information about educational resources available to process servers, such as the excellent process server manuals put out by individuals and state associations in Arizona, California, New Jersey and Texas.
While we will not be putting the Rules of Civil Procedure for all the states on the website (these are available on a variety of other sites), we will be posting information as to the states which regulate process serving statewide, citing the relevant statutes, and other important data-state by state-concerning the authorization to serve process.
Special Legislation Fund
There were 563 members who contributed $25 to the Special Legislation Fund when paying their dues this fiscal year. The total collected from this source was $14,075. Additionally, we have had donations from Fred Blum ($1500), Stuart Perlmutter ($500) and Larry Roth ($500), which brings the total donations to $16,075.
The funds are kept in a separate account-Vanguard Prime Money Fund-and are to be used for the sole purpose of "supporting or opposing rule changes or legislation in the various states of the United States or the Provinces of Canada that would have major impact on the process serving industry." The Board opted against setting up a committee to disburse the funds. All applications will go directly to and on approval will be dispersed by the NAPPS Board of Directors.
Szerlip & Co. Stops Writing E&O Insurance
I have learned that one of our endorsed insurance agents-Szerlip & Co.-is no longer writing E&O and liability coverage for process servers and private investigators. All existing policies will be allowed to expire without renewal.
