Judicial Branch Certification Commission issues multiple final orders, rejects one settlement and ratifies dismissals

The Judicial Branch Certification Commission met Feb. 7, 2025, and issued multiple final orders in disciplinary matters involving process‑server certification, rejected a proposed settlement in one false‑statement case, and ratified a series of administrative dismissals after discussion.

The commission approved the minutes from its Nov. 1, 2024 meeting and then took up a compliance hearing in which staff presented an alleged false sworn return of service that the presenter described as a perjury matter. Staff asked the commission to issue a final order that would include permanent revocation of the respondent’s process‑server certification and an administrative penalty of $1,250, payable within 12 months. The commission voted to issue the final order after the respondent failed to appear for the proceeding.

The commission also moved to issue final orders by default in multiple other process‑server cases where business‑records affidavits showed respondents were provided notice and did not respond. For those default matters (identified in the meeting materials and discussed on the record), commissioners voted to adopt the sanctions that were specified in each notice of violation.

Separately, the commission considered two agreed final orders in cases involving Donald Wambaugh (case numbers discussed on the record as 0568 and 0645). Commissioners approved adoption of the agreed final orders after staff confirmed the respondents had accepted the stipulated sanctions.

A settlement agreement in case 0574 — in which staff reported the parties had agreed to reduce penalties and have the respondent pay $500, described in the record as the statutory maximum for the alleged false‑statement violation — prompted debate. One commissioner moved to reject the proposed settlement and instead pursue revocation or a contested hearing. After discussion about the complaint‑review committee’s role and the availability of a later hearing, the commission voted to reject the proposed settlement agreement.

On a block of items listed as administrative dismissals, the commission ratified dismissals for a series of cases (agenda item 9, items a through m). One dismissal (case 0609) prompted extended discussion: some commissioners urged referral to the complaint‑review committee because of apparent discrepancies between a process server’s sworn return and the server’s responses; others noted the current process‑server curriculum language on ‘‘drop serve’’ scenarios and cautioned about charging a nonlawyer with knowledge of case law not taught in training. The commission ultimately ratified the administrative dismissal but directed staff to consult with the process‑server advisory board and review whether curriculum or the electronic return options should be updated.

A complainant who appeared by video for matter 0543 raised concerns about whether requested service had occurred and whether she had been bypassed by the respondent. After the complainant spoke, staff advised the record did not contain sufficient proof to sustain the allegations, and the commission voted to ratify the administrative dismissal in that case.

The commission closed the public portion of the meeting to convene a closed session for licensed‑applicant deliberations and consultation with legal counsel.

Votes at a glance: all motions recorded on the public record were approved by voice vote with the standard ‘‘aye’’/‘‘opposed’’ calls; specific tallies by commissioner name were not read into the public record for every motion and are recorded in the official minutes.

The commission’s actions addressed individual licensing and disciplinary matters rather than changes to statute or permanent rulemaking. Staff and commissioners repeatedly emphasized that the complaint‑review committee develops sanction recommendations, which staff may propose but the committee and commission may accept or deviate from.