I
am
generally
a
very
courteous
lawyer,
and
I
like
to
extend
courtesies
whenever
I
can.
The
practice
of
law
is
difficult
enough
at
baseline,
and
lawyers
can
make
it
easier
to
practice
if
they
extend
small
favors
to
each
other
and
treat
adversaries
and
other
stakeholders
in
a
legal
matter
with
some
kindness.
However,
sometimes
lawyers
ask
me
to
waive
substantive
rights
that
my
clients
might
have,
under
the
guise
of
granting
adversaries
a
courtesy.
I
generally
do
not
believe
a
lawyer
has
a
duty
to
extend
a
courtesy
that
waives
a
client’s
substantive
right,
and
this
usually
extends
to
not
automatically
accepting
service
of
process
or
waiving
defenses
parties
might
have
involving
service
of
process.
In
some
instances,
rather
than
make
an
adversary
go
through
the
process
of
serving
my
clients,
I
will
accept
it.
For
instance,
if
an
adversary
gives
me
an
extension
of
time
to
answer,
I
generally
repay
the
favor
by
waiving
service
of
the
summons
and
other
initiating
papers.
In
addition,
some
clients
want
their
lawyers
to
waive
service
of
process
since
they
do
not
want
to
be
chased
down
by
process
servers.
However,
if
a
client
does
not
care
about
being
served,
and
lawyers
are
not
getting
anything
in
return,
it
seems
fine
to
refuse
waiving
service
of
process.
Several
times
in
my
career,
I
have
defended
clients
who
were
not
properly
served
with
process.
Sometimes,
my
clients
encourage
me
to
fight
service
of
process
since
they
want
to
advance
any
defense
they
have
to
a
given
legal
claim.
Usually,
I
will
not
file
a
motion
to
dismiss
solely
on
the
basis
of
ineffective
service
of
process,
but
if
I
am
filing
a
motion
to
dismiss
anyways,
I
might
throw
in
the
lack
of
service
of
process
as
an
additional
defense.
In
some
instances,
service
of
process
is
waived
if
it
is
not
contested
early
in
litigation,
so
it
typically
pays
to
preserve
the
argument,
especially
if
a
motion
to
dismiss
is
filed
for
other
reasons.
Multiple
times
in
my
career,
adversaries
have
reached
out
and
asked
that
I
waive
service
of
process,
even
though
they
concede
service
of
process
was
wrongly
performed
and
I
filed
a
motion
to
dismiss
on
this
basis.
Adversaries
have
suggested
that
it
is
a
common
courtesy
to
waive
service
of
process,
and
that
I
was
not
being
kind
with
contesting
service
of
process.
I
usually
respond
by
saying
that
it
was
not
typical
to
unilaterally
waive
service
of
process
without
getting
any
benefit
in
return,
and
that
if
the
adversary
did
not
want
to
make
service
of
process
an
issue
in
this
case,
the
lawyer
could
have
followed
the
service
of
process
rules
correctly.
I
am
not
the
type
of
lawyer
who
really
cares
if
another
lawyer
waives
service
of
process.
If
the
other
lawyer
wants
to
waive
service,
I
prepare
an
acknowledgement
of
service
document,
and
if
they
do
not,
I
reach
out
to
a
vendor
in
order
to
properly
effectuate
service
of
process.
Guilting
someone
to
accept
service
of
process
is
not
a
tactic
that
I
employ,
but
this
has
happened
to
me
on
multiple
occasions.
I
generally
want
to
be
seen
as
a
courteous
lawyer,
but
at
the
same
time,
I
have
a
duty
to
diligently
represent
my
client,
and
waiving
service
of
process
can
forgo
a
critical
defense.
I’d
love
to
hear
responses
from
practitioners
about
whether
waiving
service
of
process
is
a
courtesy
that
should
be
done
unilaterally
and
when
no
benefit
is
conferred
on
the
lawyer
waiving
service.
My
feeling
is
that
lawyers
should
not
be
asked
to
waive
a
substantive
right,
and
this
is
different
from
when
a
lawyer
asks
for
an
adjournment
due
to
unforeseen
circumstances
or
other
similar
situations.
Although
lawyers
can
sometimes
waive
service
of
process
for
practical
reasons,
if
a
client
wants
to
fight
service
of
process,
lawyers
should
not
be
pressured
to
waive
this
argument
in
order
to
promote
courtesy.
Jordan
Rothman
is
a
partner
of
The
Rothman
Law
Firm,
a
full-service
New
York
and
New
Jersey
law
firm.
He
is
also
the
founder
of
Student
Debt
Diaries,
a
website
discussing
how
he
paid
off
his
student
loans.
You
can
reach
Jordan
through
email
at
[email protected].