Pacer emergency...help!!

[Wantmypeace]

I thought that if we ran a report over 30 pages, we would only be charged up to the cost of 30 pages or $2.40. I ran a report to look at the cases for the trustee that we've been assigned, and it came back at 800 pages! I didn't even bother looking at it, because I realized I had entered to big of a date range to get any useful information. BUT, I thought, no worries, I won't be charged more than $2.40. However, I just looked at my account, and IT CHARGED ME $64.00 for that one mistake! Please tell me there's a way to fix this...

[despritfreya]

Don't know if you can get a refund for the mistake. The 30 page limit applies to pleadings and documents pertaining to a particular case, not other kinds of info such as what you were searching.

Call the Clerk's office on Monday and explain what happened.

Des.

[Wantmypeace]

I will. That totally sucks! I didn't realize it was case specific. I will be VERY careful from now on. In my defense, the usual screen that comes up and says what the cost will be did not show up for this one, so I'm a little confused by it. I will make sure I only search case-specific from now on, though!

[AngelinaCatHub]

IF you call the Courthouse and explained, they will take your situation in advice and make a correction. Actually the Court is pretty kind. 'Hub

[momofthree]

I did a search on my attorney and it ended up costing me $10. That REALLY sucks that you ended up with such a huge bill, but yeah, the limit is on an individual case.

[Wantmypeace]

Okay, adding it to my list of phone calls to make Monday morning!

[despritfreya]

I did a search on my attorney and it ended up costing me $10.

And, I am going to guess that it was well worth the investment as you educated yourself in relation to the attorney you picked. You did the right thing.

Des.

[HHM]

The way to fix it is to realize that PACER is the LEAST useful way to research a specific trustee or attorney.

[despritfreya]

The way to fix it is to realize that PACER is the LEAST useful way to research a specific. . . attorney.

I disagree. Utilizing this tool allows one to see the following:

1. Mega amount of cases within a very short period of time ='s mill operation - stay away.
2. Mega amount of cases over many years ='s successful attorney - further investigation is warranted.
3. Very few cases file ='s relative newbie which may or may not warrant further investigation depending upon whether or not you care if the attorney is "seasoned".
4. A random search of the actual cases filed by a particular attorney ='s ability to see if those cases were successful and if so - further investigation is warranted.

Using PACER is just one of many ways to investigate an attorney - certainly a better avenue then by going with one simply because that attorney floods the market with advertising.

Des.

[AngelinaCatHub]

Des, the last lawyer I would use is one that advertises. They usually are paper filers and wish not to go to Court, and depend on settlements. Those who bk advertise usually 'low ball' the costs. The best in my book is a former or current Trustee. You will then know that at least the paperwork is right. Due to incompetence we filled out papers four times before they were right. We being 'dumb as bricks' got NO guidance from our "seasoned" lawyer. She assumed we knew everything about bk. Didn't know 'Jack', and I don't believe she did either. 'Hub

[despritfreya]

Des, the last lawyer I would use is one that advertises. They usually are paper filers and wish not to go to Court, and depend on settlements. Those who bk advertise usually 'low ball' the costs. The best in my book is a former or current Trustee. You will then know that at least the paperwork is right. Due to incompetence we filled out papers four times before they were right. We being 'dumb as bricks' got NO guidance from our "seasoned" lawyer. She assumed we knew everything about bk. Didn't know 'Jack', and I don't believe she did either. 'Hub

Hub,

It is always a crap shoot. Unfortunately there is no way for any of us to know until we take the leap if the "professional" we hire is any good. Mistakes go with the territory and that is why most attorneys have malpractice insurance. But, incompetence, well that is something I personally cannot deal with. My advice to anyone who comes into the office is to shop around. Get 2nd and 3rd opinions, just like you do with a doctor. In the end you will choose, not necessarily the cheapest attorney, but the one you feel most comfortable with. You can only hope you picked the right one.

Des.

[HHM]

Desp, notice, I didn't say it "wasn't" useful, I said it is the LEAST useful.

Let's say a consumer gets this information

1. Mega amount of cases within a very short period of time ='s mill operation - stay away.
2. Mega amount of cases over many years ='s successful attorney - further investigation is warranted.
3. Very few cases file ='s relative newbie which may or may not warrant further investigation depending upon whether or not you care if the attorney is "seasoned".
4. A random search of the actual cases filed by a particular attorney ='s ability to see if those cases were successful and if so - further investigation is warranted.

What good does it really do them in selecting a specific attorney right for their case? Even in your summary, without more context, there is no way to tell from number of filed cases the quality of the attorney and even more important, the quality of service. The least useful, and MOST EXPENSIVE is random search for cases. What does "more investigation" really mean. At the end of the day, to really use PACER to research is a colossal waste of money and time for the consumer for the limited value of information you can really glean from it.

The reality is, nearly all cases go to discharge, so there is no way for a consumer to identify up front, which cases to even review and to even know what they are looking for because every possibility could have a reasonable explanation. Desp, keep in mind the different minds sets here, you are in insider in the system so you now have intuitive knowledge of how the BK system works, a consumer doesn't have that background information, so from a practical perspective, most people have no idea what they are looking at when they go on PACER and how to even evaluate what they see, and by the time they are done, they could have a $200 bill and not be in any better position to select an attorney.

At a minimum, you should NOT start your search with PACER, too overwhelming and of no help. Once you have narrowed your choice down to 2-3, then a PACER review may be helpful, but its a doubled edge sword unless you understand the context of that attorneys practice, you have no way to judge what you find on PACER.

[justbroke]

I have done lots of research in PACER, including cases in my District, in my State (outside my District), in my circuit court of appeals (11th Circuit), and across the country! However, I would never search by attorney or Trustee! There is no "limit" to how much they'll charge if you get a result set that is hundreds of pages!

Having wrote that, my research was combination of using the law library and free PACER terminals at the Federal courthouse (across the street). Also, there are some good sites on the Internet that keep a good deal of opinions and appeals readily accessible. Google is also your friend.

Additionally, most District web-sites has an "Opinions" area where you can find published and un-published opinions from the District judges. Studying your specific Judge is always great. I also would check the "Calendar" -- also on line at the District web site -- to find similar cases and then read the specific papers associated with the specific motion/objection that I wanted to review.

Actually, I found just looking at docket entries -- or performing large searches -- in PACER to be fruitless. What I really wanted was caselaw and opinions (published or not) from my District (and specifically my Judge). That was always specific to the topic that I was researching, so it was never random.

[Wantmypeace]

Well, at least we can all agree that my search of cases by my trustee over the last few months was a DUMB MOVE. LOL! Lesson learned, especially now that I know there is no limit on charges outside of specific case searches.

[despritfreya]

Desp, notice, I didn't say it "wasn't" useful, I said it is the LEAST useful. . .

All very valid points. I suppose I am so use to dealing with PACER and the information contained therein I do forget that, as you say, I am an "insider".

Des.