[WSBARP] Litigator Help - Mtn to Quash Service

[Gregory L. Ursich]

This should be a bar complaint to WSBA; and also to Attorney General's Office. The bar complaint may be against the attorney that instructed ABC to do this?

[Logo, company name  Description automatically generated]
Gregory L. Ursich | Shareholder
Skyline Tower, Suite 1500 | 10900 NE 4th Street | Bellevue, WA 98004
P: 425.450.4258 | F: 425.635.7720
vCard<mailto:http://www.insleebest.com/uploads/vcards/gursich.vcf> | website<mailto:www.insleebest.com> | gursich at insleebest.com<mailto:gursich at insleebest.com>


This electronic mail transmission is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the review of the party to whom it is addressed.  If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately return it to the sender.  Unintended transmission shall not constitute waiver of the attorney-client or any other privilege.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of Paul Neumiller
Sent: Monday, November 4, 2024 3:35 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>; WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Cc: ll_atty at googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Litigator Help - Mtn to Quash Service

Any thoughts on this?  Does ABC Legal Services get away with this?


[cid:image003.jpg at 01DB2ED2.F80245F0]


From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>> On Behalf Of Paul Neumiller
Sent: Friday, November 1, 2024 3:52 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>>; WSBA Probate & Trust Listserv <wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com<mailto:wsbapt at lists.wsbarppt.com>>
Subject: [WSBARP] Litigator Help - Mtn to Quash Service

Whoa.  Just met with new client who was served the summons and complaint by ABC Legal Services by EMAIL with a signed "acceptance of service."  Here's what ABC did.  They emailed the unrepresented client and said ABC needed to email pleadings to the client but to open the documents (to see what's going on), the client needed to go to ABC's "secure" portal website.  Well, the client did that but the website DOES NOT allow access unless the client signed in (using client's finger on his cell phone), so he did.  Later, after getting access to the ABC portal and reviewing the pleadings, he sees that ABC transferred his signature to gain access to the portal to an Acceptance of Service.   Client insists he was not accepting service of process but rather just opening the email to see what was going on.  Client has copies of email to confirm this interpretation.

Is this standard practice?  Has anyone fought this and won a motion to quash service.  For a variety of strategies, the client would love to restart the response timeline and quash this initial improper service.


[cid:image003.jpg at 01DB2ED2.F80245F0]



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20241105/cbbf32b1/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 62307 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20241105/cbbf32b1/image002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 14264 bytes
Desc: image003.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20241105/cbbf32b1/image003.jpg>