I had the pleasure of working with the folks at PacerPro this year to explore the power and direction of their SaaS model for managing and monitoring federal litigation. To merely say that efficiency is the core on which their flagship product is constructed would do it a slight disservice. There is much more to the platform and its potential than that. What resulted from my investigation is a white paper that details what PacerPro brings to the table and what it can do for law firms of all sizes.
Few things have raised such hue and cry in our industry this year as the announcement that PACER was going to be without certain courts’ materials. The concern expressed by law librarians and legal researchers clogged newsfeeds for weeks and made its way – all the way – into the halls of politics. Yet while many saw an immediate challenge to the way we work, others saw an opportunity to turn an old model on its head. Bloomberg BNA president, David Perla, in a recent article for Law Technology News, was among those not only seeing the glass as half-full but also thinking of newer, better ways to make it overflow.
Though I have detailed its flaws, PACER’s existence as the centralized interface containing electronic access to Federal court dockets and
Anyone involved in legal research is more than familiar with PACER (the name, an acronym, stands for: Public Access to Court Electronic Records). Before we delve into the glaring weaknesses and errors of PACER, let’s just step back and give thanks that there is a way for users to access docket and documents filed in all federal district, bankruptcy, and appellate courts—it could always be worse (and judging by some state court docket site designs, it can be much, much worse). Clearly, this is a massive undertaking, and the volume of information being tracked and made electronically available is absolutely stunning. But, PACER does have its flaws, here are a few of the more conspicuous: