Guardrails in Litigation: Building Habits that Protect Clients
Every litigator knows the broad strokes of civil procedure: file the complaint, serve the defendant, move the case forward. But the fine-grain details — the things that seem routine or ministerial — are often where cases turn. A recent Georgia Court of Appeals decision, Perry v. Pearson, shows how.
A Cautionary Tale from Perry v. Pearson
In Perry, the plaintiff filed suit well within the statute of limitations and served the defendant months before the deadline ran. Service itself was undisputed. But the trial court dismissed the case with prejudice because the proof of service — the sheriff’s return — was filed later, after the statute of limitations expired.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed. The law is clear: under OCGA § 9-11-4(h), failure to file proof of service “shall not affect the validity of the service.” Service is accomplished when the defendant is actually served. Filing the return is a record-keeping step, not a condition of jurisdiction. Still, the dismissal illustrates the risk: when procedural steps are left open, overworked trial courts may conflate rules and treat a late filing as more consequential than it is.
Why Habits Matter
Plaintiff lawyers work under immense pressure. We juggle heavy caseloads, emergencies, and clients in crisis. Judges are no less overburdened, writing orders under tight deadlines and sorting through stacks of motions. In that environment, it is not surprising when routine points are misapplied.
The safest path is to build institutional habits that eliminate the possibility of dispute. Proof of service should be filed immediately, every time. Treat it as part of the service itself. Use checklists, redundant calendars, and default practices that err on the side of caution. If a return is in hand, it should already be on the docket.
Protecting Clients from Systemic Risk
The lesson from Perry is not that anyone acted in bad faith. The lawyers got their client served on time. The judge misapplied a rule that should have been clear. Both mistakes are understandable given workload and human fallibility. But together, they nearly cost a plaintiff his day in court.
As plaintiff lawyers, our job is to design systems that protect clients even when the system falters. That means making deadlines redundant, filing proof promptly, and assuming that if a step can be misunderstood, it will be. A clean record leaves less room for courts to go astray, and reduces the risk that clients will have to depend on an appellate reversal to salvage their claims.
Building Durable Practices
The broader lesson is simple: don’t rely on what “should” be obvious. Build institutional guardrails:
File proof of service immediately, without exception.
Double-check statutes of limitation.
Maintain redundant calendaring for every critical deadline.
Document service, filings, and communications promptly.
None of this will win a jury trial. But it is what keeps strong cases from being lost to avoidable pitfalls. Our duty as plaintiff lawyers is to protect clients not only from defense tactics, but from the ordinary pressures and errors that can creep into any system run by human beings.