Choosing the Right Process Server: Growing Court Concern

Choosing the Right Process Server: Growing Court Concern

Could you be sued and not even know it until it is too late to defend yourself? That question has been raised in a recent investigative report in North Texas, where several local judges say they are seeing a growing number of defendants who present credible evidence that they were never properly served.

At the centre of the story is a scenario every legal professional recognises as high risk: service is said to have taken place, an affidavit is filed, and a default judgment follows. Only later does the person learn what has happened, often after damage has already been done. In one case highlighted, a defendant said she discovered the lawsuit only after a default judgment had been entered, impacting her credit.

She then found an affidavit stating she was personally served at a family address on 13 February 2025, including a claim that her identity was confirmed when she answered to her name. She maintained she was hundreds of miles away that day, and friends provided sworn statements supporting her location.

When service is disputed, everything that follows becomes fragile: judgments can be challenged, enforcement can be delayed, costs can escalate, and confidence in the system takes a knock. For claimants, improper service can derail an otherwise straightforward matter. For defendants, it can remove the chance to respond at all.

Why judges are concerned, and what it tells us about the market

Local judges in Denton County reportedly told investigators they are seeing more instances where defendants say they were never served, sometimes backed by home security footage or other evidence. In response, some courts have gone as far as maintaining informal lists of process servers they consider untrustworthy and will no longer accept. Judges have also subpoenaed some process servers to answer questions about how service was carried out, which is a serious step and a clear signal that the courts view the issue as more than administrative error.

The report also points to a structural pressure: parts of the industry operate like a gig marketplace, where volume drives income. When speed and throughput are rewarded more than accuracy and documentation, the risk is obvious. A sworn affidavit is a formal statement to the court. If it is false, the consequences can be severe for the individual who signed it, but the wider harm lands on the parties who relied on it.

Oversight can take time, too. The Texas licensing body referenced in the report said complaints have increased in recent years, and that investigations can take many months on average due to limited resources. That matters because it means relying on after-the-fact enforcement is not a strategy. The real protection starts much earlier, with who you instruct.

UK courts have reached the same hard-edged conclusion: if service is shaky, everything built on it can collapse. In Credit Agricole Indosuez v Unicof Ltd & Ors [2003] EWHC 77 (Comm), a default judgment was obtained on the back of a certificate of service and a process server’s affidavit asserting the claim form had been handed to (or left with) the defendant company’s secretary at its registered office. When service was challenged, the evidence did not withstand scrutiny and the claimant accepted it could not prove personal service as stated. The High Court held the judgment had been entered on a false basis as to service, concluded the proceedings had not been served at all, and set the default judgment aside. The practical lesson is the same: if proof of service cannot survive a close look, the “quick win” of default judgment can turn into delay, cost, and reputational damage.

The real lesson for instructing parties

Legal teams often instruct process servers under time pressure, but the risk profile is not symmetrical. A cheap or careless serve can create expensive consequences, including applications to set aside, contested evidence, wasted hearings, and professional embarrassment. On the other hand, a professional, well-documented serve supports the court’s confidence and protects the case from avoidable challenge.

A sensible approach is to treat the choice of process server the way you would treat the choice of expert. You are not only paying for attendance at an address. You are paying for competence, compliance, and credibility if service is later scrutinised. That means looking for a provider with recognised accreditation, robust internal supervision, and a clear method for recording attempts and outcomes. It also means choosing the right process server with a proven track record, not anonymous capacity.

Why accreditation and track record matter, and how Tremark supports best practice

At Tremark Associates, process serving sits alongside investigations and legal support services where accuracy, confidentiality, and evidential quality are essential. We have built our approach around external standards and independent scrutiny, because that is what creates defensible work product.

Tremark is certified to British Standard BS 102000 for investigative services and ISO 9001 for quality management, and we have achieved ISO 27001 for information security. We are also Cyber Essentials accredited and hold FSQS accreditation, reflecting supplier assurance expectations in regulated environments. As corporate members of the Association of British Investigators, we operate within professional standards and a code of practice, supported by robust complaints and discipline procedures.

Those credentials translate into day-to-day discipline. Instructions are logged and managed, attendances are structured, and evidence is prepared to a standard that can stand up to scrutiny if needed. Where service is not achieved, the focus shifts to gathering and presenting the right information to support next steps, including applications where substituted service may be appropriate.

Closing thoughts on choosing the right process server

The North Texas concerns are a reminder that service of process can fail in ways that are hard to unwind. The best time to prevent that is before the instruction goes out. Choose a provider that is accredited, well regarded, and demonstrably competent, because the credibility of service can be the credibility of the case.

Looking for a dependable process server, backed by 30+ years of experience and fully-accredited? Fill out the form below and a member of the Tremark Associates team will be in touch shortly.