Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Process Servers Training topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission debates "drop serve" language after disputed return; staff asked to review curriculum and app fields
Summary
Commissioners disagreed over whether a process server's return and an electronic 'drop serve' satisfied current curriculum standards; the commission ratified dismissal but directed staff to consult the process‑server advisory board about updating training and app return fields.
Commissioners at the Judicial Branch Certification Commission’s Feb. 7, 2025 meeting extensively discussed a complaint (agenda item 9 g, case 0609) alleging a misleading sworn return of service involving a ‘‘drop serve’’ conducted through a window.
Staff described the facts from the complaint and the respondent’s return: the server reported that the subject nodded when named and accepted service, while an attached response indicated the server had shown documents through a window, the individual signaled to have the document dropped at the door, and the server later dropped the paperwork. Staff advised the commission that, under the current process‑server curriculum language, some ‘‘drop serve’’ scenarios where the parties can see and hear one another through a door or window may be permissible and can be documented as delivery in person on the return.
Several commissioners pressed substantive questions about whether the sworn return was candid and sufficiently detailed, and whether a nonlawyer server should be held responsible for knowledge of case law not included in training. One commissioner urged referral of the matter to the complaint‑review committee; another said the curriculum language read in the meeting supports certain drop‑serve situations. Commissioners additionally raised practical concerns that commercial process‑service apps provide a limited set of return fields and that those electronic limits may shape the content of recurring returns.
After discussion, the commission ratified the administrative dismissal for the block of dismissals (including 0609) but asked staff to take note and work with the process‑server advisory board to evaluate whether the written curriculum and the options in the electronic return app should be updated to reduce ambiguity and to encourage clearer sworn returns.
No new sanction was imposed in this matter during the public meeting; staff will coordinate any further action with the advisory board and the complaint‑review committee if needed.
