We have never ruled on the question of whether service on a partner’s attorney, when the partnership has not specifically designated the attorney to receive service, can constitute service on the partnership. Several jurisdictions which have ruled on this issue have held that service on a defendant’s attorney will not effect service on the defendant unless that defendant has authorized the attorney to receive such service. See, e.g., Santos v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 902 F.2d 1092, 1094 (2d Cir.1990) (“[Sjervice of process on an attorney not authorized to accept service for his client is ineffective.”) (citing 4A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1097 (2d ed. 1987)); Leonard v. Stuart-James Co., Inc., 742 F.Supp. 653, 662 (N.D.Ga.1990) (<HOLDING>). We agree with the analysis in those cases and
holding the rule 4 requirement of delivery to the appropriate united states attorney required personal service not service by certified mail holding that service of subpoena on plaintiffs counsel as opposed to the plaintiff himself renders such service a nullity holding that service is not avoided by service on a partys attorney as service on an attorney is ineffective unless he has been authorized to accept such service holding that an attempted service on the partys counsel was insufficient without proof of the counsels actual authority to receive service holding that service of a statecourt summons and complaint after removal to federal court is valid service