Public sentiment is divided on the Supreme Court's case regarding summoning lawyers. On one hand, there is a notable frustration and skepticism towards the legal system, with many criticizing lawyers and expressing distrust in the judicial process. On the other hand, admiration for the judge overseeing the case highlights a desire for integrity in the judiciary, alongside calls for improvements in legal proceedings.

Supreme Court

Lawyers

Judges

Businesses are required to have Registered Agents for Service of Process in most, if not all, states. That address can likely be found on your state's Secretary of State website. That's most likely the address the document was sent to as required. Nothing unscrupulous. 

Also, the manager and employee were likely sued in their capacity as employees, and that's why they were served through the SOS address, too. 

NAL but a litigation paralegal for years before retiring. Without knowing the state to look up the process rules, nothing is jumping out as improper just based on what you typed, but I thought I'd answer since no one else is around tonight. Ignore if you wish. Someone will eventually pop by.

UglyTrickster

Because someone new didn't know it's better to use certified mail, or because it slipped someone's mind. Neither of your explanations makes a lick of sense. They don't benefit in any way.

goodcleanchristianfu

(1) Don't fail to appear -- that'd be a dumb way to get a warrant and turn this petty offense into a situation where you could spend a weekend in jail;

(2) Don't dress like a slob;

(3) Do be polite;

(4) Apply for a public defender if you're eligible (this depends on the seriousness of the offense, and I wouldn't know from here if it's a possibility), or retain a lawyer if you have the resources to do that on your own;

(5) We can't really give you substantive legal advice here (see sidebar).

Good luck.

[deleted]

Dude.  Call the clerk of the courts, ask for crim/traffic division, and they'll let you know if its a crim issue, or a civil infraction.  

But, if you have to go to court, here is what to expect.

Upon your arrival, you will immediately notice that there is a milling about of "people" out front of the courthouse.  These "people", my friend, are not people but Courthouse Zombies.  The are the living undead of the juvenile, domestic, and misdemeanor court's trial docket.  Sometimes they stand motionless, eyes wide, and hands trembling, awaiting the arrival of their errant attorney; others casually smoke cigarette after cigarette, medicating themselves with sweet, sweet nicotine in an attempt to deaden their nerves for their impending doom; and the last sort are often the employees and minions of the clerks offices themselves, on a break or otherwise absent from their duties, they curse their very existence and those who dare ask them for assistance; they are not to be trifled with.

Upon entering the courthouse, you and your fellow man are herded much like animals into a line where you are immediately suspected of the most heinous crimes, and for your untrustworthiness you shall be searched involuntarily and shall be forced to yield to the repeated bombardment of various radiations upon your person and your possessions.   A sentinel, armed with the various accoutrements of his torturous arts, shall waive a magical wand over your form, and woe unto those whom effect a hellish tone from the demon's stick... for they shall certainly be subjected to further defilings of their person and their garb.

Should you be lucky enough to make it past the watchmen, the ways and passages of the courthouse shall not suffer you lightly, and the various wanderings and meanderings of more courthouse zombies will befuddle your senses as you seek your destination, all the while, the clock proceeding uncaringly towards your fateful time, and ultimately your destiny.  Should you find yourself lost, you may attempt to implore the fast moving and fairly clad Lawyers who travel the various biways of the courthouse... but do so at your risk.  Many lawyer's souls have been taken by the madness, and have devolved emotionally into something subhuman, yet still possessing the capabilities of their brethren lawyers, allowing them to effect their secret arts and incantations without the moral trappings of ethics or care; these creatures are nothing less than living, breathing weapons, to be borne by those offering the most gold; beware them.   Yet some Lawyers have held back the madness, and have maintained that which makes them human all despite their daring dealings with the nefarious and the corrupt.  They, and only they may be able to help you. 

Upon finding your courtroom, the smell of fear and desperation will strike your senses unheeded.  Quickly find a place to take your seat, as additional sentinels who are more highly armed, and less inclined to pity you, shall be keeping careful and critical eyes over you and the other zombies.  Often Lawyers will gather beyond the bar separating those who practice the mysterious arts of "law", and the commonfolk.  They are inexplicably immune to the fear and desperation that succumbs all others perhaps due to their experience and knowledge of the dark arts of procedural practice and legal precedence.  

Ah-hem....  The judge/magistrate will walk in, your name will be called.... If it's civil, you will be offered the choice of having a hearing or paying a fine.   If it's criminal, you will be offered legal assistance should you not be able to afford it, and or asked how you'd like to plea.

Oh, and yeah, dress nicely.  That's about it.

rainemaker

Former criminal defense trial lawyer here.  I can't give legal advice, but you **must** appear at the time and place you were summoned.

This is most likely a fine for a toll road or something, right?  So it probably isn't criminal, just assessing a fine.  I don't know for sure, so check to see if this is a violation or a crime, like a misdemeanor or felony.  If it is a crime, you can ask for a public defender at the arraignment.  You will have to meet income guidelines, though.  But if there is a criminal charge, be sure to get a lawyer.  Do not handle it yourself.

If this is just a violation, you should be able to schedule a trial or hearing to contest it.  You'll also have the option of pleading guilty/no contest and paying a fine.

But be sure to appear.  An FTA (failure to appear) almost always means a bench warrant to arrest you and a misdemeanor FTA *criminal* charge.  You do not want that.

Uncle_Erik

Helpful, persuasive addendum... don't think because you're in NYC that your little NJ summons isn't going to travel across the Hudson to find you.

Show up as required. You do not want to be arrested on a Friday on an outstanding warrant, and locked up until the following Monday.

The question before the court is whether, in cases arising under the Armed Career Criminal Act, which imposes mandatory prison terms on some defendants who have committed three violent felonies or serious drug offenses on separate occasions, a judge should use a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard to decide whether the offenses were committed on separate occasions or instead a jury must make those decisions unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court holds that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require a unanimous jury to make that determination beyond a reasonable doubt.

HeathrJarrod

6-3, but not like normal. Gorsuch wrote for the Court, in which Roberts, Thomas, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Barrett joined. Roberts wrote a concurrence. Thomas wrote a concurrence. Kavanaugh wrote a dissent in which Alito joined and in which Jackson joined in part. Jackson wrote a dissent.

Luck1492

I feel like the majority's constant reiteration (excerpts below) of the importance of a **unanimous** jury is written with an eye on the Trump NY case, wherein the jury was instructed that it did not need to be unanimous as to the "unlawful means" of the offense. (Jury instruction: "Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were.") Unanimity was not an issue in Erlinger, yet the opinion restates the unanimity requirement repeatedly. The dissent doesn't mention unanimity so making the point wasn't necessary to the majority. I predict we will see Erlinger front and center in trump's challenge to his convictions. 

&gt;



&gt;



&gt;



&gt;

Greelys

Will this affect Trump’s conviction where the jury was instructed it need not be unanimous as to the precise “means”?

Hey, as an attorney representing debtors, I'd also tell them to avoid service as much as possible. Sure, filing BK stops a lawsuit, but having a pending suit also imposes a timeline and limits your options. If something comes up such that it makes sense to wait a month to file, it's easier to do that when there's not a lawsuit (for which you've been served) with court dates coming up.

Gunner_Esq

So if you want the contrary opinion supporting those suggesting accepting, and I am of the opinion that both viewpoints are valid in different circumstances, accepting a summons puts information in your hands.  Right when you need it, actually.

OK, so you've already got a bankruptcy attorney.  So that means you're filing soon.  Potentially, before the lawsuit can hurt you.  So, what does that mean?  That means that if you accept that summons, you have the name and address of the law firm, the court number for the case, and the names of any successor parties in interest who might be the debt buyer filing suit.  

There's a lot of information in a summons that you could use pretty soon, and when you consider that you can't rely on a process server not lying and saying they served you anyway, would you rather play hide and seek or have the information?

AlanShore60607

I don't agree with the strategy of dodging process servers. You lose control of the situation if  it takes longer than expected to file bankruptcy.

The danger is substitute or alternative service to your work, family, or friends without your knowledge. Then you end up with a fast default judgment that you don't know about within 6 weeks, and there is a lien or levy put on your house, wages, or bank account a month or two later which is the first notice that you've been defaulted.  Or the process server pretends to serve you and straight up lies about it. It will be he said she said whether you took papers because the GPS will show the process server did show up. If you want to challenge service, you have to pay a fee to the court and schedule a hearing. If you win, you're still out the fee and the creditor can still try to serve you again.  If you have an aggressive law firm against you like the ones Amex hires, they work fast like in terms of weeks rather than months to begin judgment collection.

InfiniteCheck

Thank you for your post on r/bankruptcy. Remember, this is not a forum to request (or offer) legal advice. If you are not sure what legal advice is, review the FAQ page [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Bankruptcy/comments/cx6g73/bankruptcy_faqs/). It is very likely someone will suggest you speak with an attorney. Consultations for bankruptcy are often very low cost or free. We have an ever-growing post that provides free resources for trustworthy bankruptcy information [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Bankruptcy/comments/o27hof/free_helpful_legitimate_resources/).

*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Bankruptcy) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

No idea, that seems odd.  Maybe he’s trying to save himself the extra “work” of having to be added to the lawsuit as your representation?  Being noted as such was the only thing my attorney had to do outside of the bankruptcy case itself.

Maybe to save you from the extra “black mark” in the public record that you’ve been sued?  But that’s already happened if you’re expecting a summons.  Not being served, or even BK, doesn’t erase the fact that a lawsuit was filed.

My last thought was maybe there’s a timing thing hes trying to aim for to make your case more likely to succeed or be easier?  

That all said, lawsuits generally aren’t special or immune from being discharged in BK so it’s not a matter of “we have to file before you’re sued cause then you’ll have to pay.”

I have a lawsuit or an attempt to get a judgment from one creditor that I had to respond to, and ended up getting what I wanted. However, I still have to file a BK. It doesn't show up. It's best to file it as soon as possible. Dodging them would stress you out more. If you get served, you can file an answer which will buy you another 20-30 days. By the time they set the date, you should have another 30-40 days. My case involves two summons and a payment plan arrangement, and it's not a big deal.


Welcome to r/legaladvicecanada!

**To Posters (it is important you read this section)**


* Read the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/index/#wiki_the_rules)
* Comments may not be accurate or reliable, and following any advice on this subreddit is done at your own risk.
* We also encourage you to use the [linked resources to find a lawyer](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvicecanada/wiki/findalawyer/).
* If you receive any private messages in response to your post, please let the mods know.

**To Readers and Commenters**


* All replies to OP must be on-topic, helpful, explanatory, and oriented towards legal advice towards OP's jurisdiction (the **Canadian** province flaired in the post).
* If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdvicecanada/about/rules/), you may be banned without any further warning.
* If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect.
* Do not send or request any private messages for any reason, do not suggest illegal advice, do not advocate violence, and do not engage in harassment.

 Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules.


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/legaladvicecanada) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Provided that they follow the rules for communicating with parties, lawyers can speak with any witness. Witnesses do not "belong to" a party.

struct_t

Privileged communication is between lawyers and clients. P does not have a lawyer, nothing P says as a witness to a lawyer is privileged communication. 

Confidential and privileged are not the same thing, and rules of discovery are different in civil trials than in criminal. 

Belle_Requin

I wouldn't be intimidated by a demand for documents with a threat they'll bring a motion to compel. 

You would have the ability to tell the judge why you don't think you should be compelled to provide this in discovery and third party production orders are generally only granted if there's no way to get it from the parties.

KWienz

The Supreme Court has initiated a case regarding the practice of summoning lawyers, raising concerns over lawyer-client confidentiality.

Supreme Court Case on Summoning Lawyers

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want