A huge hat tip to my friend and fellow law blogger, Ted Folkman, for his Case of the Day post last week about Peanuts Worldwide v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A (N.D. Ill. 1:23-cv-02965).* He very deftly connected the dots
Over the years, I’ve posted in this space a couple of diatribes about the wisdom– or really, lack thereof– in a strict DIY (do-it-yourself) mentality in the practice of law. See here and here if you’re interested. Yes, I have a pecuniary interest, but I contend that a DIY approach to the Hague Service Convention
[Update, December, 2025… the 2d Circuit agrees, as covered by my friend and fellow transnational legal tour guide, Ted Folkman. To be sure, the conflict only arises in what I call “5-O countries”, but even where Article 10(a) postal channels are available, e-service is still a bad idea in most cases. ]
At
No, really. This is what we do here. Hague Service. All the time.
Continue Reading Hey, defense counsel, we know what we’re doing.
I don’t have an FAQ page on this blog, but if I did, the very first question out of the gate would be “How do I cut that translation cost down from $50,000 to a more manageable figure?”
It really is a shock to a litigator’s system– especially that of a patent litigator– when they’re told that the documents they have to serve in Germany or China or Mexico will cost them five (or six!) figures to translate. Those countries’ declarations to Article 5(3) of the Hague Service Convention require translation. Period. And most other countries require it too, with no exception or variance as to what gets translated and what doesn’t. It means everything. Continue Reading The time to save money on translation is *before* filing.
Last week, Peggy and I returned home from Nashville, where we attended our second in-person Clio Cloud Conference (#ClioCon), the tenth overall and eighth live legal tech nerd prom hosted by Vancouver’s favorite super-cool CRM software provider.*
Continue Reading Why I write the way I do.
Author’s Note: This is far from a scholarly criticism– it is a nuts & bolts look at how this thing should go down. Preface:
Frankly, I think electronic service is the only way to get these scofflaws served.
Continue Reading Don’t know where your defendant is? You still have to *look* for them.
(TL;DR… publication is a horrible, terrible, woefully insufficient means of service, and the Supreme Court said so way back in 1950. It should only be used as a last resort, and even then, only when there’s a reasonable chance that it’ll actually notify anybody that a case is afoot.)
A story flooded my news feed last Friday… US Judge Orders a Mexican Drug Cartel to Pay $1.5 Billion to Victims’ Families. A default for a billion and a half bucks ($4.6B after it’s trebled) is almost real money in this day & age, so I got curious about the procedural posture of the case. Because I live in civ-pro, several questions popped into my head, first among them being “who got sued?” (with a bit of incredulity).
Continue Reading Publication, 4(f)(3), and Mexican Cartels
As a general rule, I don’t talk to litigants. Even if their lawyer consents or hops on the call with us. Sure, the litigant is the guy paying my fee, but his lawyer is my client, and I’m not about to get in the middle of their relationship. Besides, it’s always a terrible idea to give a litigant control over something that is a lawyer’s ethical obligation.
Continue Reading Run away when the litigant says this…
