Could Connecticut state marshals use a private LLC to collect and assign legal papers for service in 2007?

Plain-English summary

In 2007, Connecticut's State Marshal Commission asked about a proposed LLC that would collect legal papers, distribute them to marshals, and charge members and software fees. Attorney General Richard Blumenthal concluded that the private company could not take over those parts of the marshal service system. The statute directed legal process to an appointed marshal or another legally authorized server, not to an LLC that would assign the work.

The AG also identified a new law due to take effect on October 1, 2007, barring a private entity from charging a state marshal a fee for performing statutory duties. He said the proposed membership and software charges would be unlawful under that law. The opinion distinguished ordinary support work, such as copying documents under the marshal's direction, from a business controlling assignment and service.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2007. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

State marshals at the time

The opinion described the personal duty to receive directed process, execute it promptly, and make a true return. It said participation in the proposed LLC would displace that statutory responsibility. It did not prohibit every third-party service: copying and similar work remained permissible under a marshal's direction and responsibility.

State Marshal Commission members at the time

The AG recommended advising marshals that process had to be directed to them by the attorney or court officer, and that participation in the described network was unlawful. He tied that conclusion to the statutes governing marshal duties and the newly enacted ban on private fees for performing those duties.

Process service businesses and litigators at the time

The proposed LLC would have collected papers from court officers and assigned them to individual marshals. The opinion found no statute permitting a private entity to receive the process or direct its service. It treated the court officer's direction to a proper server as a required step, rather than a task for the proposed network.

Common questions

Q: Could a private service company receive court papers and assign them to Connecticut state marshals?
A: The 2007 opinion said no. The proposed company was not a statutorily authorized officer to whom process could be directed or who could control its assignment.

Q: Could the company charge marshals membership or software fees for access to service work?
A: The AG said Public Act 07-69 would expressly prohibit the proposed charges when it took effect on October 1, 2007.

Q: Could a marshal still pay someone to copy papers?
A: Yes, according to the opinion. It distinguished support work done under the marshal's direction from transferring statutory duties to a private business.

Background and statutory framework

The Commission supplied a proposal for Connecticut Service Network, LLC. The AG reviewed statutes requiring process to be directed to a marshal or another authorized person and giving marshals personal responsibility for service and return. He found no authority for an LLC to collect, assign, or direct process or collect fees tied to marshals' statutory work.

The analysis included Public Act 07-69's prospective private-fee prohibition and recognized that a marshal could use support services while remaining responsible for the work. The conclusion was about the proposed network's operating model.

Citations and references

Statutes and act cited in the opinion: Conn. Gen. Stat. § 6-38a; Conn. Gen. Stat. § 6-38b; Conn. Gen. Stat. § 6-32; Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-50; Public Act 07-69.

Case cited in the opinion: Kelly v. Kelly, 83 Conn. 274 (1910).

Source

• Landing page: https://portal.ct.gov/AG/Opinions
• Opinion page: https://portal.ct.gov/ag/opinions/2007-formal-opinions/dennis-f-kerrigan-jr--chairman-state-marshal-commission-formal-opinion-2007019-attorney-general-stat

Original opinion text

Dennis F. Kerrigan, Jr. Chairman, State Marshal Commission, Formal Opinion 2007-019, Attorney General State of Connecticut

Attorney General's Opinion

Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal

September 21, 2007

Dennis F. Kerrigan, Jr., Esq.

Chairman

State Marshal Commission

765 Asylum Avenue

Hartford, CT 06105

Dear Chairman Kerrigan:

As Chairman of the State Marshal Commission, you have requested a formal opinion of the Attorney General as to whether state marshals are prohibited from participating in a business entitled Connecticut Service Network, LLC, and what action, if any, our office would recommend to the Commission concerning such a business.

According to the materials provided to us, this business entity would establish a network of state marshals who would pay an annual fee to belong, collect legal process from officers of the court and distribute it to individual marshals, along with necessary copies for service of process. The marshals would then report service back to the entity on software supplied by the network, for which the marshal would pay a fee.

Until recently, the service of legal process in Connecticut was performed by deputy sheriffs acting under a constitutional officer, the High Sheriff of each county in Connecticut. The sheriffs system in Connecticut was abolished by constitutional amendment effective November 30, 2000. The process-serving functions formerly performed by sheriffs are now performed by state marshals. The service of process is a sovereign governmental function subject to control and oversight by the Connecticut General Assembly. Kelly v. Kelly, 83 Conn. 274 (1910). Although state marshals are "independent contractors" (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 6-38a), state marshals are appointed by a statutorily empowered state agency, the State Marshal Commission, which has the authority to appoint marshals, "establish professional standards, including training requirements and minimum fees for execution and service of process," and remove state marshals for cause. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 6-38b.

State Marshals have the statutory duty to "receive each process directed to such marshal when tendered, execute it promptly and make true return thereof." Conn. Gen. Stat. § 6-32. (emphasis added). State marshals are authorized “to provide legal execution and service of process compensated on a fee for service basis, determined, subject to any minimum rate promulgated by the state, by agreement with an attorney, court or public agency requiring execution or service of process.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 6-38a.

The procedure for serving legal process is articulated in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-50. That section in relevant part provides:

Sec. 52-50. Persons to whom process shall be directed. (a) All process shall be directed to a state marshal, a constable or other proper officer authorized by statute, or, subject to the provisions of subsection (b) of this section, to an indifferent person. A direction on the process “to any proper officer” shall be sufficient to direct the process to a state marshal, constable or other proper officer. (emphasis added).

This statute unequivocally requires all process to be directed to a state marshal, a constable, or other proper officer authorized by statute, or subject to the provisions of subsection (b) of § 52-50, an indifferent person. The summons form itself is a signed order from an officer of the court and directed “to any proper officer authorized by statute.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-45b (emphasis added).

Quite simply, there is no statute authorizing a private business entity such as you described to have legal process directed to such an entity. Such an entity is not a "state marshal, constable or other proper officer." Section 52-50. Nor is there any statutory authority for such an entity to collect legal process from officers of the court, to assign or otherwise direct in any manner service of process to or by state marshals, to establish a "network" of state marshals, or to collect any fees from state marshals related to the legal execution and service of process.

The operations of a business entity such as you described, and the actions of state marshals who may participate in such a business entity, are completely inconsistent with the service of process system established by the General Assembly. Such an arrangement would intrude upon and usurp the statutory duties and responsibilities of state marshals and the State Marshal Commission, and would thus be in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 6-32, 6-38a,6-38b,6-38d,6-38f, 52-50 and 52-45b.

Further, Section 2 of Public Act 07-69, effective October 1, 2007, states: "A state marshal shall not be charged any fee by a private entity for performing such state marshal's statutory duties." According to its legislative history, Public Act 07-69 prohibits private business entities from charging state marshals any annual contractual fee or any fee for utilizing private business entities' computer systems: "if there is a fee that would be essentially charged to the marshal by that private business entity for the opportunity to serve that process, or for facilitating that service, it would be prevented by this bill." Remarks of Senator McDonald, 50 Conn. S. Proc., pt. 81 2007 Sess. 2457 (May 16, 2007). As of October 1, 2007, therefore, the fees charged state marshals by the Connecticut Service Network to join its network and to use its computer systems will be expressly illegal.

We recognize that many State Marshals use third parties to perform various services, such as copying of documents. We do not believe such delegation of duties by state marshals is improper, provided they are performed at the direction of the Marshal, who remains responsible for the accuracy of the work performed.

We recommend you advise all State Marshals that legal process must be directed to them by the attorney or officer of the court signing the summons and that it is illegal for them to participate in the type of business entity you have described.

Very truly yours,

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL

ATTORNEY GENERAL