4 ms·

for anyone who has ever gotten the surprise O($10,000) PACER monthly bill, this is a no-brainer. not just lawyers who get these bills btw.

texasbigdata 6y ago
But it also blocks access to justice. Just pulling the docket and a few related small filings for a case can cost $50+. It (and this is a stretch) essentially disenfranchises poorer members of society by limiting their access to justice and information.
- Alupis 6y ago
  In my experience, lawyer fees are highly decoupled from their expenses... which is to say even if PACER fees were dramatically reduced, lawyer fees will not. Not sure how that can help poorer members of society, since most people are quite unlikely to be doing their own case law research anyway.
  - chaps 6y ago
    Heh. One way it helps poorer members of society is by making it possible to do basic research on courts data so that the public can understand and take action from understanding what's happening in courts and how law is applied. This research is impossible right now without spending billions of dollars in PACER fees.
    - pnw_hazor 6y ago
      Most opinions and orders are published for free on various government sites. PACER is useful for seeing submissions from parties or the court that occur in pending cases. Usually this stuff is of little interest or use to normal people.
      - chaps 6y ago
        Heh. I'm not talking about opinions, I'm talking about case outcomes, involved parties, lawyers, judge info, terminated parties, dates, docket info, context, complaints. And furthermore, I'm not talking about individual cases. The interest for "normal" people largely comes from the aggregate of PACER records, with analysis done on top of that. In other words - because we can't get aggregate records of court information, we can't run analysis that would be interesting or useful for understanding what's happening. Surely you can see how this data could inform the US in understanding how the law is applied throughout. If not, I'll gladly type up a list of 50 kinds of analysis that would be interesting to normal people. The people who would run this analysis are technical journalists with backgrounds in court data. An example of a project that uses PACER information whose bills are in the thousands because of the high PACER costs: https://www.chicagoreporter.com/series/settling-for-misconduct/ https://www.chicagoreporter.com/series/settling-for-miscondu... This is not feasible in a time where freelance journalists have to do preliminary research before even writing a pitch.
  - beervirus 6y ago
    It should still be possible, even if most people don't take advantage of it. Charging for access to (case)law just rubs me the wrong way.
    - rayiner 6y ago
      Legal opinions are free on PACER.
      - beervirus 6y ago
        Oh, I didn't know that. (I'm a lawyer, but my practice is transactional rather than litigation--I've never had to use PACER.)
      - elliekelly 6y ago
        Sometimes. They’re supposed to be but the billing is wildly inconsistent. And I think you still have to pay a fee for the search so even downloading a “free” opinion costs at least 10¢.
  - _jal 6y ago
    > Not sure how that can help poorer members of society, since most people are quite unlikely to be doing their own case law research anyway. That's frequently the only way the poor can pursue justice. Pro se representation is a thing; sometimes they even win. But aside from that, without knowing what courts are doing, there is no way to assure they're acting in the public interest. The public must be able to inspect the work output of the courts if a free society is to stay free.
    - tcj_phx 6y ago
      >> Not sure how that can help poorer members of society, since most people are quite unlikely to be doing their own case law research anyway. Legal opinions are free, for pro-se case law research: https://scholar.google.com/ https://scholar.google.com/ etc. You need access to the filings to see if someone got screwed. I use the filings in notable cases to help me figure out what I need to say in my own case. The State University's law school library has free access to Westlaw, and other resources (law journals, etc). > That's frequently the only way the poor can pursue justice. Pro se representation is a thing; The Federal Judicial Center has a report on helping the federal courts deal with unrepresented parties [2]. My local district court has a free attorney program for people like me who can't afford an attorney. My last free consultation, the attorney suggested I had a case of 'fraud on the court', which is when you get screwed by your opponent playing dirty. Almost five years ago I'd petitioned the state court pro-se for a writ habeas corpus, on behalf of my friend, the day after I found the term mentioned in the state statutes: "habeas corpus [0]? oh how useful". The judge seemed impressed that she was able to rule in my favor. On returning to the hospital with my granted court order, I was attacked by the security guards and was charged with misdemeanors (the one hospital security guard got unhinged when I took his picture to document the situation). > sometimes they even win. My defense attorney was impressed with my granted pro-se habeas petition. He said he knows attorneys who couldn't do what I did as a rookie pro-se filer. My subsequent filings have all been fine, but the various judges have found ways to avoid having to deal with them. The first judge misquoted the wording of state statutes to make my petition go away. The state court of appeals recruited one of their retired judges to dismiss my appeal. The state supreme court dismissed without comment. Federal judges are supposedly better than state judges, on account of the lifetime appointments. I think the district court judge who had to deal with me didn't want to, so he just ignored the inconvenient parts of the case law. The court of appeals also got rid of my appeals, without addressing my contentions. Hrmph. I recently figured out how to get a new judge [1]. > But aside from that, without knowing what courts are doing, there is no way to assure they're acting in the public interest. The public must be able to inspect the work output of the courts if a free society is to stay free. This is well said. My district court filings are all public, even though they ought to at least be anonymized (like was done in Roe v. Wade, for example). I've come to appreciate that my asking to file under seal gave the court of appeals judges and supreme court justices a convenient 'out' that allows them to avoid having to deal with me. My predicament is that don't want to give advanced notice to the perpetrators who ought to be prosecuted. As far as these pacer fees: I'm glad my filings haven't been siphoned into courtlistener.com yet, as that means they can still be sealed... [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus [1] 28 U.S. Code § 144.Bias or prejudice of judge -- https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/144 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/144 [2] https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/2017/Pro_Se_Case_Management_for_Nonprisoner_Civil_Litigation.pdf https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/2017/Pro_Se_Case_Man...
  - pessimizer 6y ago
    It feels strange to have to say this, but there are thousands, if not millions, of people who have done their own legal research who are not professional lawyers. They do this because they can't afford professional lawyers and they are in legal peril. Many of them are in prison themselves.
    - Shicholas 6y ago
      the best lawyer I've met is a non-lawyer inmate doing his own research
    - pnw_hazor 6y ago
      Good thing their are many free government sources that provide all the research material anyone would ever need. Though PACER is good for looking at submitted papers to see how other lawyers draft their complaints, motions, etc.

texasbigdata 6y ago

But it also blocks access to justice. Just pulling the docket and a few related small filings for a case can cost $50+. It (and this is a stretch) essentially disenfranchises poorer members of society by limiting their access to justice and information.

Alupis 6y ago
In my experience, lawyer fees are highly decoupled from their expenses... which is to say even if PACER fees were dramatically reduced, lawyer fees will not. Not sure how that can help poorer members of society, since most people are quite unlikely to be doing their own case law research anyway.
- chaps 6y ago
  Heh. One way it helps poorer members of society is by making it possible to do basic research on courts data so that the public can understand and take action from understanding what's happening in courts and how law is applied. This research is impossible right now without spending billions of dollars in PACER fees.
  - pnw_hazor 6y ago
    Most opinions and orders are published for free on various government sites. PACER is useful for seeing submissions from parties or the court that occur in pending cases. Usually this stuff is of little interest or use to normal people.
    - chaps 6y ago
      Heh. I'm not talking about opinions, I'm talking about case outcomes, involved parties, lawyers, judge info, terminated parties, dates, docket info, context, complaints. And furthermore, I'm not talking about individual cases. The interest for "normal" people largely comes from the aggregate of PACER records, with analysis done on top of that. In other words - because we can't get aggregate records of court information, we can't run analysis that would be interesting or useful for understanding what's happening. Surely you can see how this data could inform the US in understanding how the law is applied throughout. If not, I'll gladly type up a list of 50 kinds of analysis that would be interesting to normal people. The people who would run this analysis are technical journalists with backgrounds in court data. An example of a project that uses PACER information whose bills are in the thousands because of the high PACER costs: https://www.chicagoreporter.com/series/settling-for-misconduct/ https://www.chicagoreporter.com/series/settling-for-miscondu... This is not feasible in a time where freelance journalists have to do preliminary research before even writing a pitch.
- beervirus 6y ago
  It should still be possible, even if most people don't take advantage of it. Charging for access to (case)law just rubs me the wrong way.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    Legal opinions are free on PACER.
    - beervirus 6y ago
      Oh, I didn't know that. (I'm a lawyer, but my practice is transactional rather than litigation--I've never had to use PACER.)
    - elliekelly 6y ago
      Sometimes. They’re supposed to be but the billing is wildly inconsistent. And I think you still have to pay a fee for the search so even downloading a “free” opinion costs at least 10¢.
- _jal 6y ago
  > Not sure how that can help poorer members of society, since most people are quite unlikely to be doing their own case law research anyway. That's frequently the only way the poor can pursue justice. Pro se representation is a thing; sometimes they even win. But aside from that, without knowing what courts are doing, there is no way to assure they're acting in the public interest. The public must be able to inspect the work output of the courts if a free society is to stay free.
  - tcj_phx 6y ago
    >> Not sure how that can help poorer members of society, since most people are quite unlikely to be doing their own case law research anyway. Legal opinions are free, for pro-se case law research: https://scholar.google.com/ https://scholar.google.com/ etc. You need access to the filings to see if someone got screwed. I use the filings in notable cases to help me figure out what I need to say in my own case. The State University's law school library has free access to Westlaw, and other resources (law journals, etc). > That's frequently the only way the poor can pursue justice. Pro se representation is a thing; The Federal Judicial Center has a report on helping the federal courts deal with unrepresented parties [2]. My local district court has a free attorney program for people like me who can't afford an attorney. My last free consultation, the attorney suggested I had a case of 'fraud on the court', which is when you get screwed by your opponent playing dirty. Almost five years ago I'd petitioned the state court pro-se for a writ habeas corpus, on behalf of my friend, the day after I found the term mentioned in the state statutes: "habeas corpus [0]? oh how useful". The judge seemed impressed that she was able to rule in my favor. On returning to the hospital with my granted court order, I was attacked by the security guards and was charged with misdemeanors (the one hospital security guard got unhinged when I took his picture to document the situation). > sometimes they even win. My defense attorney was impressed with my granted pro-se habeas petition. He said he knows attorneys who couldn't do what I did as a rookie pro-se filer. My subsequent filings have all been fine, but the various judges have found ways to avoid having to deal with them. The first judge misquoted the wording of state statutes to make my petition go away. The state court of appeals recruited one of their retired judges to dismiss my appeal. The state supreme court dismissed without comment. Federal judges are supposedly better than state judges, on account of the lifetime appointments. I think the district court judge who had to deal with me didn't want to, so he just ignored the inconvenient parts of the case law. The court of appeals also got rid of my appeals, without addressing my contentions. Hrmph. I recently figured out how to get a new judge [1]. > But aside from that, without knowing what courts are doing, there is no way to assure they're acting in the public interest. The public must be able to inspect the work output of the courts if a free society is to stay free. This is well said. My district court filings are all public, even though they ought to at least be anonymized (like was done in Roe v. Wade, for example). I've come to appreciate that my asking to file under seal gave the court of appeals judges and supreme court justices a convenient 'out' that allows them to avoid having to deal with me. My predicament is that don't want to give advanced notice to the perpetrators who ought to be prosecuted. As far as these pacer fees: I'm glad my filings haven't been siphoned into courtlistener.com yet, as that means they can still be sealed... [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus [1] 28 U.S. Code § 144.Bias or prejudice of judge -- https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/144 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/144 [2] https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/2017/Pro_Se_Case_Management_for_Nonprisoner_Civil_Litigation.pdf https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/2017/Pro_Se_Case_Man...
- pessimizer 6y ago
  It feels strange to have to say this, but there are thousands, if not millions, of people who have done their own legal research who are not professional lawyers. They do this because they can't afford professional lawyers and they are in legal peril. Many of them are in prison themselves.
  - Shicholas 6y ago
    the best lawyer I've met is a non-lawyer inmate doing his own research
  - pnw_hazor 6y ago
    Good thing their are many free government sources that provide all the research material anyone would ever need. Though PACER is good for looking at submitted papers to see how other lawyers draft their complaints, motions, etc.