The obvious wrong about Pacer is when a person doesn't have the financial means and wants to pursue by pro se. The law was constructed in the interest of the p

The obvious wrong about Pacer is when a person doesn't have the financial means and wants to pursue by pro se. The law was constructed in the interest of the public and self representation was deemed reasonable for justice to be always administered when a wrong has been committed and a person wants to seek a verdict. Well if you're a person who has low finances and in a situation where no lawyer will take your case by interest or financial reasons. You can still file a lawsuit and have the filing fees waived. The problem will be how much it costs to print copies for yourself, the number of defendants and the judge (court). People underestimate how much is needed to print if you're unable to electronically file. Lawyers have access to the online filing system but pro se doesn't necessarily (depending on the state) and has to file in paper with mailing everything out. Further more, the defendants may be a corporate entity with expensive lawyers on retainers, who have full access to every previous court verdict (similar to the situation) on PACER. They likely have a local database of the downloaded documents and where they can do advance searches. On the other hand the pro se is restricted by PACER in fear of the financial bill when searching and viewing documents to find something similar to his/her own situation.