Process Server Licensing Bills
None of the process server licensing bills, which were reported on in the last issue of The Docket Sheet, were successful in making it through the legislative gauntlet of their respective states.
The Connecticut bill (House Bill 6140), which would have permitted corporations and other entities authorized to conduct business in Connecticut to serve any form of process, died when the Session adjourned 6/4/03.
The Hawaii bill (House Bill 979), which would establish a Civil Process Commission to regulate the registration of process servers, was still in the Judiciary Committee when the session adjourned 5/1/03. Bill will be carried over to 2004.
The Tennessee bill (House Bill 1898), which would establish the "Private Process Servers Regulatory Act," was on hold in the Judiciary Committee when the session adjourned 5/3/03. There is hope that this bill will still have legs when it's carried over to the 2004 session even though it has strong opposition from the Tennessee Bar Association.
The Texas bill (House Bill 1741), an extensive change in the law which would provide for statewide licensing of all private process servers (two forms of licenses: process server license for the principal and registered agent license for their workers) and other provisions, died in the Committee on Civil Practices when the session adjourned 6/2/03. It will be re-introduced when the Texas legislature next convenes in 2005.
Massachusetts Constables Get Broadsided!
The Governor of Massachusetts is putting the finishing touches on a monstrous state budget which includes legislation called the Municipal Relief Bill. In the bill is a provision that constable fees for service of process will double—Hooray!—but wait.....50% of the increase will have to be kicked back to the city or town in which they were appointed or elected to serve. And in the case of some constables, there’s more than one city or town involved.
Constables are essentially independent contractors and are not part of the salaried municipal bureaucracies. There is concern by some constables that this will turn their businesses into an accounting nightmare. Reports detailing all the constables’ income, expenditures, number of services performed, number of both full and part-time employees and independent contractors, and the compensation structure used to pay them, are just some of the records they will be required to maintain and file annually, under penalty of perjury, with the city or town treasurer.
Notice to Members Serving Subpoenas to Sprint
Effective June 1, 2003, Sprint Corporation’s legal department has instituted a new policy pertaining to its acceptance of subpoenas delivered to its corporate offices at 6480 Sprint Parkway, Overland Park, KS 66251, for telephone records.
A subpoena for Sprint cell phone records must be addressed to Sprint Spectrum, L.P. and a subpoena for other Sprint telephone or long distance records must be addressed to Sprint Communications, L.P.Do not address the subpoena to “Sprint Corporation.
This information is provided by Member Tom Losh of Executive Attorney Services in Overland Park, KS. Anyone having questions about this new policy should call Tom at (913) 764-9484 or send him an email to ProcessServer@Lycos.com.
Want to Sell Your Large, Profitable Business??
I’ve had numerous inquiries over the years from individuals and brokers who were interested in buying a process serving business. But none can compare with an inquiry I received recently regarding a tantalizing offer to purchase a “large, profitable company whose principal business is process serving and related services.”
Charles Peterson, President of Fundamental Research, Inc., Cherokee, Iowa, contacted me and asked if I would publicize that he has a client (a large corporation) interested in acquiring a company in the process service industry. They are looking for a company with a gross annual income of between $5 million and $20 million. There may be talking room for a company with lesser revenue, but he made it quite clear that the buyer has no interest in acquiring a company that is not in the million $$$ category.
The buyer is a service corporation whose business has nothing to do with process serving. Consequently, the buyer would expect the seller to have the owner or a principal in the business stay on and run the company for a specified period of time. Probably the best part about this offer is that the buyer is willing to pay cash to close the deal. Get in line! Those interested may contact Mr. Peterson in Iowa at (712) 225-5992.
New HIPAA Law May Impact Process Servers
Members who serve subpoenas for medical records are waking up to a new threat, the extent of which is unknown at this time. In 2001 President Bush signed into law the Healthcare Insurance Portability And Accountability Act (HIPAA). The legislation contains a privacy rule that prohibits health care providers from disclosing medical records (in whatever form or medium maintained) which fall within the definition of "protected health information" (PHI).
The relevant portion of the law of interest to process servers—that dealing with the release of medical records by subpoena—took effect April 14, 2003. It specifies that a health care provider may release medical records only after obtaining satisfactory assurances that the requesting party has made a reasonable effort to provide written notice of the request to the patient or to obtain a “qualified protective order.” This means that there will be two parts to every subpoena served—the subpoena itself and a separate page containing a written declaration from the party seeking the records that it has attempted to notify the patient about the subpoena, and a written statement that either the patient did not object in a timely manner or that any objection was resolved in favor of disclosure.
Lawyers (and process servers) should not assume that they can slide in under the radar and ignore this new law. A provision in the law requires that health care providers appoint a privacy official to be responsible for the implementation of privacy policies and procedures. And they face both civil and criminal penalties for violation of the statute.
But woe to the person who improperly obtains information in violation of HIPAA. That’s good for a $50,000 fine and a year in jail. The best, however, is left for those individuals who obtain medical records under false pretenses or who transfer information for a profit—they can be fined up to $200,000 and imprisoned for up to 10 years.
2003 Refunds Paid to Chartered State Associations
In June of each year, NAPPS issues refunds to all chartered state associations in an amount equal to $10 for each NAPPS member in their state, irrespective of whether that member is also a member of their local state association. This year’s refunds totaled almost $1,000 more than the payout for 2002. Florida maintained its position as the top recipient. New York dropped to 3rd place after California moved into 2nd place as result of a phenomenal increase of 54 members. All associations had a larger refund this year than last except for Texas, New Jersey and Oregon. Their NAPPS member numbers remained unchanged. The payouts this year are as follows:
Florida (FAPPS)
193 members
$1,930.00
California (CAPPS)
174 members
$1,740.00
New York (NYSPPSA)
171 members
$1,710.00
Texas (TPSA)
103 members
$1,030.00
New Jersey (NJPPSA)
34 members
$340.00
Oregon (OAPS)
34 members
$340.00
Washington (WSPPSA)
34 members
$340.00
Arizona (APSA)
32 members
$320.00
TOTAL ...................................................... $7,750.00
