Skip to content

BulldogPI leaves NAPPS: ‘…not in plantiff’s interest…’

April 6, 2012
Mr. Crowe:
 
As the result of yet again, another undesired, unacceptable, and disadvantageous subcontracted assignment from a fellow NAPPS agency, I have decided to withdrawl my organization’s membership in NAPPS.
If a law firm wishes to utilize the services of a process server, it is in their client’s best interest for said firm to make contact with and establish an agreement with the company providing the service of process  directly.  Unfortunately it appears that many law offices prefer making arrangements through process-serving  clearinghouses. These organizations  then actually make the effort to locate a process server in the actual area of need. 
My  expectation for legal counsel to employ actual due diligence…  to seek out a process server in their location of need…, might be unrealistic.  It is however irresponsible of me to contribute to their ineffective predilections. 
Current arrangements between attorneys, resellers of litigation services, and process servers has demonstrably  resulted in hindered lines of communication;  this counterproductive involvement of additional liaisons may prove  convenient  for legal counsel, but  is not in the best interest of the actual plaintif.   
 
The circumstances I am reflecting upon within this email  were unknown to me at the time of my application and admittance into NAPPS.  The vast majority of the business obtained through my membership with NAPPS comes in way of subcontracted assignments.  Involement in an association whose members primarily function in this way was not my intention.
 
After much consideration, I have decided that the continued acceptance of subcontracted service of process is counter-intuitive to my organizations reputation and goals.  These ‘litigation clearinghouses’ in reality become a source of competition and strike me as detrimental to our legal system.  The resellers  have no actual first-hand knowledge of whether or not the service was actually performed.  On one specific occasion  I was instructed to sign an notarized affidavit stating that a posted service had also been sent via certified mail.   I had no actual knowledge of any such mailing.  Additionally, that agency (Metro Detective Agency out of Illinois) filed a grievance in which they misconstrued the way a subcontracting scenario had played out between our two agencies.
 
Several NAPPS affiliates have requested my company to perform tasks on behalf of those organizations that I deem as unethical.  Solicitations have also  been recieved for private investigation services, performed under the guise of process serving.  In the state of Virginia, performing investigations without  proper licensing is clearly illegal and I take strong exception to these requests.
 
Therefore, I have made the decision to withdraw my organizations membership.
 
Sincerely,
 
James Pollock
Pollock’s Process Serving
 
Bulldog Investigations
Virginia DCJS License #11-6038
 
One Comment
  1. Chris Meyerson permalink

    Good for you Sir…. Im up here in Baltimore MD Delmarva Process Service Inc. If we can ever be of service…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: