Substituted Service of Court Process via Facebook

It seems that service of court process via Facebook has now been accepted as an alternative mode of service in New Zealand. This illustrates that case law is dynamic and alive, and is in touch with the current trends in society.

I was pleasantly surprised by this development. Pleasantly, because that's the way case law should be—evolving and relevant. Surprised, because the legal profession is not the most enthusiastic when it comes to embracing new technology.

There are fundamental reasons for this hesitation to embrace new technology. The legal profession is traditional in a lot of aspects. For instance, the language commonly used in court and in pleadings and contracts contain a lot of Old English phrases and terminology. Usage is also distinctly archaic though there are talks of changing this.

This traditional image can also be perceived from the layout of a court room to the pillar and scales logo of almost anything connected to the profession. Almost anything connected to the legal profession shouts of adherence to tradition. (which might include the traditional typewriters :) )

In addition, unlike most other professions, the legal profession is essentially backward-looking. Medical and engineering practitioners are forward-looking in the sense that they focus on what could be done instead of what has been done.

Doctors, for example, would try to discover new ways of combating illness and engineers would try to discover new ways of producing stronger polymers and alloys. Legal professionals, on the other hand, whether members of the bench or of the bar, routinely look back at what has already been decided keeping the doctrine of stare decisis in mind.

But times change and the legal profession has to keep up. Moreover, people should not be allowed to circumvent the law and escape legal procedure when modern technology is available to prevent the same. This new interlocutory order is a step in the right direction.

Nobody should be allowed to willfully disregard legal procedure by actively evading conventional service then cry foul when substituted service is made.

Anyway, if someone does not want to be served via Facebook, they always have the option to update their current address in the court records so that court process could be served in the conventional way. Failure to do so stinks of bad faith. No court would allow the service of a process through the Internet or even through substituted service when ordinary service would suffice.