Direct Results Legal Service
516 West Annie Street
Austin, Texas 78704
(512) 447-2300 Telephone (512) 447-3303 Facsimile
June 5, 2008
Honorable Chief Justice Wallace B. Jefferson
Supreme Court of Texas
201 W 14th Street, Room 104
Austin, Texas 78701
Re: Process Server Certification Program
Dear Chief Justice Jefferson:
Though I am somewhat at a loss as to what more I could possibly say to appeal to you, I feel again compelled to
contact you regarding the PSRB and the certification program in general.
In your reply to our letter, you say that there was broad support of the proposed certification program. This is
true. Not only did I send in letters of support, I urged others in my industry to do the same. But, it’s unfair to
assume that our support in the beginning could be applied to the monstrosity that certification has become.
The certification program, as proposed, gave the impression that the authorization to serve process on a
statewide level was simply an increase to what were the current requirements for the process server. In addition
to being not less than eighteen, not a party to the suit and not interested in the outcome, a person seeking
statewide authority would also be required to take a training course every three years and have no felony
convictions or convictions of misdemeanors involving moral turpitude. Though I did not agree with these
increases, I was willing to relent in order to achieve statewide authority and viewed them as a tolerable common
ground compromise between full-blown licensing (i.e. Senate Bill 165) and a Federal Rule 4 equivalent.
However, nowhere in those initial docket orders was it indicated that the PSRB would be regulating us. Nowhere
did it say that complaints would be accepted, investigated and acted upon. Nowhere did it say the PSRB would
be holding hearings, examining witnesses and applying discipline and there was nothing indicating what
discipline could be administered. Nowhere was it written that the PSRB could compel the appearance of
witnesses and/or records. And, there was no method for an appeal of a PSRB decision.
Not until April of 2007 were these issues addressed by the implementation of Rule 14, RJA (which, by the way,
was broadly opposed by my industry.) The implementation of this rule after the fact proves unequivocally that
the PSRB was acting without authority before this rule was implemented; and the Court ignored our pleas. In
case you are unaware, I have attached a document that can only be described as a subpoena that was “issued”
by the Chairman of the PSRB before Rule 14 was in place and “served” allegedly by his trade association co-
director, Mr. Andrew Watson. (Not even Rule 14 gives subpoena power to the PSRB.)
It is beyond comprehension that the Court would have allowed such a document to be executed. Its appearance
is deceptive, its creation and intention unlawful. You also say in your reply that you “are not persuaded that the
actions of the Board and its members to date contravene either the court’s orders establishing the Board or
procedural rules governing the certification process.” Please tell me where in the Court’s miscellaneous docket
orders the Chairman of the PSRB could have possibly deduced an authority to “issue” such a document.
Furthermore, and even more appalling, is the fact that this document was used to abuse and harass Mr.
Letourneau (the process server in question) and to violate his constitutional rights. The minutes of PSRB
meetings regarding this matter show that Mr. Letourneau appeared as requested with counsel and a character
witness in tow, at his expense, ready to defend himself against an accusation of a criminal act of which he has
never been officially charged and, to this day, remains innocent. The complainant, despite being noticed, chose
not to appear. Instead of dismissing the complaint, as requested by Mr. Letourneau’s counsel, the PSRB voted
to table his matter so the complainant could be given a second chance to appear. Their action displayed a
complete indifference to his constitutional rights and his burdens of travel, expenses, and the cost of continuing
to conduct his business without the benefit of certification; again all done without any method whatsoever for an
appeal. That is when the Chairman took it upon himself to issue the document that compelled not only the
complainant’s appearance, but her records as well. It is also reported that the Chairman’s co-director, Mr.
Watson, brought the complainant to the subsequent hearing in his personal vehicle. Further, it should be noted
that Mr. Watson competes directly with Mr. Letourneau in San Antonio and reportedly served process for the
complainant before she “switched servers” and began using Mr. Letourneau. It is unimaginable that the Court
could be so blind to the obvious conflicts of interest regarding this matter. And, where in the Court’s orders did
the PSRB read that they could delay a decision to utilize such a procedure?
I think it also important for you to know that when I requested a copy of the “notice of hearing” (subpoena) my
request was initially denied. When questioning the Court’s Rules Attorney, Mr. Jody Hughes, about the
document, he described it simply as a “letter” asking the complainant to attend. The attached document is not a
letter and I resent this attempt to mislead.
I will also address your comment that you do not recall anyone expressing concern over the Court’s plan to
promulgate rules in the event the Legislature did not act. I find this completely unfair of you. As explained, no
one was opposed because no one understood the Court, by way of the PSRB, would be serving a “regulatory”
function. The initial orders simply did not read that way.
You also use this reasoning with regard to Rule 14. The 80th Legislature was not required to comment on a rule
that is promulgated by the Supreme Court while it is in session. According to Texas Government Code, Title 2,
Chapter 74.024(d), “The clerk of the supreme court shall report the rules or amendments to the rules to the next
regular session of the legislature by mailing a copy of the rules or amendments to the rules to each elected
member of the legislature on or before December 1 immediately preceding the session. The Legislature is not
required to review Rule 14 until this December. Furthermore, Senator Wentworth and Representative Hartnett
have routinely failed to get their licensing bills passed. It’s a weak argument to use these two politicians, out of
the entire Legislative body, to assume “the Legislature” is unopposed to the Court’s actions.
According to Texas Government Code, Title 3, Chapter 318, the Legislature is charged with the duty of reviewing
proposed regulatory programs. I find it disingenuous that you are attempting to claim a seal of approval from the
Legislature when the Legislature has for years done the very opposite by reviewing proposed regulation and
repeatedly declining to enact it.
Lastly, you claim that the Court has not undertaken to broadly regulate the process serving industry. If you
really understood the issues, you would be privy to the fact that more and more judges around the state are
rescinding their blanket orders and refusing to sign individual 103/536 orders. For example, in Harris County,
virtually all district court judges, county court at law judges and justices of the peace will no longer sign individual
orders. For servers in the Houston area, certification is not an option; it is mandatory. There are over 1000
certified process servers in the Houston area alone representing approximately one-third of those certified. And,
all process servers, regardless of where they practice in this state and regardless of whether or not they are
certified cannot serve process issuing from Harris County unless they are certified (and have an “H” in their
numbers.) This is broad regulation.
In light of all this, I find it impossible to believe that at least some of the Board’s actions have not contravened the
Court’s orders. However, instead of correcting the Board, the Court’s reaction was to implement Rule 14 thereby
condoning the Board’s behavior. I view this as an attempt to sweep all the PSRB’s unauthorized actions prior to
Rule 14 under the rug. I cannot express how disappointed I am with “my” Texas Supreme Court. From
legislating from the bench, to the Harris County discrepancy, to the rogue PSRB, and ignoring public opinion,
certification has turned into a huge embarrassment regardless of whether or not the Court acknowledges it.
I would appreciate an acknowledgment of receipt of this letter (and the attached document) and, if you should
feel so compelled, a response.
Sincerely,
Tod E. Pendergrass
President, DRLS, Inc. d/b/a Direct Results Legal Service
Director, The Certified Civil Process Servers Association of Texas
COPY OF ILLEGAL SUBPOENA