Short answer: no.
It is what it is, y’all, especially in what I call “5-0” countries. The lack of options is the biggest inhibitor to speedy service, and believe me, if there’s a better way to go, I’m going to sing it from the rooftops.
What do I mean?
Well, the Hague Service Convention essentially offers two viable options, with a sort of hybrid of the two:
- Article 5 service, in which we request the assistance of a designated Hague Central Authority to effect service according to the foreign country’s law.
- Article 10 service– 10(b) originating from the U.S. or 10(c) service from Canada*– in which we directly engage “competent persons” in the foreign country. Think process servers in Australia or judicial bailiffs in the Netherlands.
- Article 5(b) service, in which we ask the Central Authority to appoint our chosen affiliates and agents to get the job done. This is done to get the best of both worlds: speed and control thanks to a private or quasi-private operative, along with the official imprimatur of the state.
The 10(b)/10(c)/5(b) options are what I mean when I say that, if there’s a better way to go, I’m going to sing it from the rooftops. Those are the methods I recommend most wholeheartedly. But with garden-variety Article 5 Requests, there’s often little to sing about. Simply put, do not pass go, do not collect $200. In places like Vietnam and China and Mexico, there’s no feasible way to speed up the process, and that process can take seemingly forever.
There’s no way around that dilemma, contrary to a whole lot of horrible, terrible, no good case law that says “nah, go ahead and do it by email, regardless of what Justice O’Connor says.”
There is hope in a couple of different ways, both to keep the court at bay and (to a lesser degree) to assuage your client’s frustration that it takes so blasted long.
- There’s safe harbor in every rulebook out there except two– and constitutional arguments can be made about both of those. Most notably, U.S. federal rules specifically lift the ordinary service deadline, so as long as you’re diligent about getting the process started, the court can’t ding you when the local judicial officials in Biên Hòa or Guangdong or Sonora take a year to open their mail.
- In many countries, like Switzerland and Korea, it takes comparatively little time for proof to come back. No, there’s no valid alternative to Central Authority service, but those authorities get the job done in a relatively speedy manner.
In short, relax. You have to let them do their job.
* Subtle difference between the two here. Simply put, if I direct service of U.S. process in an Article 10 country, I can do it pursuant to Article 10(b) because attorneys are designated as forwarding authorities for the purpose of the Convention. But for me to direct service of Canadian process, it’s 10(c) because I’m not a member of a Canadian law society. But I’m still an interested person under that section.