Updated: December 21, 2025
Many process serving companies advertise a high “success rate” as proof of quality. While this number may sound reassuring, it is often a misleading metric and rarely reflects whether service was performed correctly under court rules.
Courts do not evaluate service based on percentages. They evaluate whether service complied with procedural requirements and whether proof of service establishes that notice was properly given. This page explains why success percentages are an unreliable measure and what matters instead.
This content is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Why “Success Rate” Is a Misleading Metric
A reported success percentage typically measures how often a server ultimately completes service. It does not account for:
- Whether the address was correct
- Whether the respondent was evasive
- How many attempts were required
- Whether substituted or alternative service was needed
- Whether service complied with court rules
A server handling cooperative recipients at known addresses will naturally report higher percentages than one handling evasive parties, incorrect addresses, or complex service requirements.
High percentages can reflect easy assignments, not procedural skill.
What Courts Actually Evaluate
When service is challenged, courts do not ask how often a process server succeeds. They examine whether service was valid.
Judges typically evaluate:
- Whether the correct method of service was used
- Whether attempts were reasonable under the circumstances
- Whether diligence was documented
- Whether substituted or alternative service was authorized
- Whether proof of service contains sufficient detail
A properly documented unsuccessful service can be more valuable to a case than a poorly documented successful one.
Courts consistently emphasize compliance and proof over outcomes, a standard reflected in public court guidance such as the People’s Law Library’s overview of service of process.
Documentation Matters More Than Outcomes
Proof of service is the court’s record of what occurred, and the contents of a properly prepared affidavit of service often determine whether service is accepted or rejected.
Reliable documentation often includes:
- Date and time of each attempt
- Address verification
- Notes regarding access issues or evasion
- Identification of recipients for substituted service
- A complete affidavit of service prepared in compliance with court rules
Without this information, service may be rejected regardless of whether documents were delivered.
Better Indicators of Proper Process Serving
Instead of relying on success percentages, parties should consider:
- How attempts are documented
- Whether multiple attempts are made when required
- Familiarity with jurisdiction-specific service rules
- Ability to support a motion for alternative service when standard methods fail
- Timeliness and accuracy of proof of service
These factors align more closely with what courts expect. Thorough documentation is also essential when a case requires a motion for alternative service after standard methods fail.
Comparing Success Rate Claims vs. Court-Relevant Indicators
| Metric | What It Actually Measures | Why Courts Care (or Don’t) |
|---|---|---|
| Advertised success rate | How often service is eventually completed | Courts do not evaluate percentages |
| Number of documented attempts | Diligence and effort | Demonstrates reasonable service efforts |
| Method of service used | Compliance with procedural rules | Critical to validity |
| Quality of affidavit of service | Accuracy and completeness of proof | Central to court review |
| Ability to support alternative service | Preparedness when service fails | Often required before approval |
When a Lower Success Rate May Be Appropriate
A lower completion percentage does not necessarily indicate poor service. In many cases, it reflects:
- Incorrect or outdated addresses
- Intentional evasion by the respondent
- Restricted access locations
- Statutory limitations on service methods
In these situations, thorough documentation of unsuccessful attempts is often required before alternative service can be approved.
Different process serving methods carry different documentation and attempt requirements, which can directly affect completion timelines.
Frequently Asked Questions
No. Courts focus on compliance with procedural rules and the adequacy of proof, not marketing metrics.
No. Service can be rejected if it does not comply with court rules, regardless of how quickly or often documents are delivered.
Proper method, reasonable diligence, and complete documentation matter more than the final outcome.
No. Service depends on factors outside the server’s control, including respondent behavior, address accuracy, access restrictions, and court-approved service methods. What a process server can control is diligence, documentation, and procedural compliance.
High success rates often reflect the types of assignments accepted, such as cooperative recipients or verified addresses. These percentages do not account for evasive parties or complex service requirements and are not used by courts to evaluate validity.
What This Means When Evaluating Process Serving Services
Success percentages can be appealing, but they are not how courts determine whether service is valid. Each service attempt presents unique variables, including respondent behavior, address accuracy, access limitations, and legal constraints on service methods.
Courts focus on whether service complied with procedural rules, whether reasonable diligence was exercised, and whether proof of service clearly documents what occurred. In many cases, detailed records of unsuccessful attempts are just as important as completed service.
Freestate Investigations’ Approach to Process Serving
At Freestate Investigations, we approach process serving as a procedural responsibility, not a marketing statistic. Our focus is on compliance, documentation, and adaptability when standard service methods are unsuccessful.
We understand that each case presents different challenges and that successful outcomes depend on preparation, jurisdictional knowledge, and accurate recordkeeping. This approach ensures service efforts are defensible if reviewed by the court and properly supported if alternative service becomes necessary.
For additional information about our process serving practices or to understand how service requirements apply to your case, contact Freestate Investigations.
This content is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Service of process rules vary by jurisdiction and case type. Consult the applicable court rules, a court clerk, or a licensed attorney for guidance specific to your situation.
