(concurring). I agree with the majority that we cannot avoid the harshness of the result — denying Gomez the opportunity for judicial review of the commission's decision. I write separately to specifically address Gomez's argument that "[t]hird parties should not be punished for relying upon the statements of governmental employees regarding the scope of their authority to the public's detriment." Gomez refers to the fact that the receptionist at the Worker's Compensation Division office advised the process server that the receptionist could accept petitions for review. ,
*694If Wis. Adm. Code sec., LIRC 3.06 did not exist, the service accomplished in this case would have been sufficient under Fontaine v. Milwaukee County Expressway Comm., 31 Wis. 2d 275, 143 N.W.2d 3 (1966) and Horrigan v. State Farm Ins. Co., 106 Wis. 2d 675, 317 N.W.2d 474 (1982).
Fontaine held that when an agent (in that case, an attorney) formally acknowledges the receipt of a document, it may be presumed, in the absence of contradiction, that he or she was authorized by the client to accept it. Id. at 279, 143 N.W.2d at 6. In the case before us, the most logical scenario is that the receptionist accepted service of the petition for review, gave it to the mail clerk who sent it up to LIRC where an agent of LIRC authorized to accept service logged in the petition and summons. Under Fontaine, that service would have been sufficient to give the circuit court jurisdiction over Gomez's petition for review.
In Horrigan, the court held that "the circumstances surrounding the service of process, as they appeared to the process server, are relevant." 106 Wis. 2d at 682, 317 N.W.2d at 478. The circumstances surrounding the service of process in this case would have led a reasonable process server to conclude that service had been effective. Under Horrigan, this would have been sufficient to accomplish service.
These cases are not applicable here because service can only be accomplished as required by Wis. Adm. Code, sec. LIRC 3.06. That section provides in part: "Service must be made upon a commissioner of the labor and industry review commission or an agent authorized by the commission to accept service only at the commission's office in Madison." (Emphasis added.) This section was revised and recreated effective June 1,1988 and was, therefore, applicable at the time of the attempted *695service in this case. Prior to the revision, sec. LIRC 3.06 provided: "Service of the summons and complaint shall be made upon a commissioner or agent authorized by the commission to accept service. Service may be made at 201 East Washington Avenue, P.O. Box 8126, Madison, Wisconsin 53708." (Emphasis added.) Thus, prior to the revision, service on a commissioner or an agent of LIRC could be made anywhere. Prior to the revision of sec. LIRC 3.06, service at Room 161, 201 East Washington Avenue would not have been contrary to either sec. 102.23(l)(b), Stats., or sec. LIRC 3.06.
It appears that LIRC acted on the suggestion of the court in Sunnyview Village v. Administration Dept., 104 Wis. 2d 396, 412, 311 N.W.2d 632, 640 (1981): "We recommend that governmental entities adopt the practice of providing with their administrative decisions information on how to process proceedings for review, including which governmental entity is to be named and served as respondent." Each decision which is subject to LIRC review now contains the following: "Service must be made upon a Commissioner of the Labor and Industry Review Commission or an agent authorized by the Commission to accept service. The Commissioners and authorized agents are located only in Madison at the address listed below." (Emphasis added.) The address listed is Room 469, 201 East Washington Avenue, Madison.
The combination of Wis. Adm. Code, sec. LIRC 3.06 and the instructions provided with the department's administrative decisions on where and how to serve petitions for review renders Fontaine and Horrigan inapplicable. Therefore, failure to timely serve a LIRC commissioner or an agent authorized by LIRC to accept service deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to entertain Gomez's petition for review. Brachtl v. Department of *696Revenue, 48 Wis. 2d 184, 188, 179 N.W.2d 921, 923 (1970), and Cudahy v. Department of Revenue, 66 Wis. 2d 253, 261-62, 224 N.W.2d 570, 574 (1974).