I am interested in getting opinions on the following concept.
Like many firms, we use a firmwide Pacer account to retrieve dockets and
filings form federal courts. As more and more courts have gone online,
especially with filings, we have seen our usage increase significantly.
Recent ECF in Florida District Courts have only helped to raise usage.
As anyone who has a Pacer account knows, it is not very expensive, but
there is not way to force users to enter a client/matter for billing,
where appropriate. We end up with a lot of blank client/matter entries,
and also a lot of general firm number entries.
We also use Courtlink for some things, but normally try to exclude basic
docket and document retrieval, since their cost is higher, and the setup
is slower. We love Courtlink for features such as their advanced
searching capabilities.
Courtlink has come to us with a proposal to use Courtlink to replace the
basic functions we do via Pacer with Courtlink. This way, we could have
separate logins for each user, and be able to track who does what, and
pursue them further for client/matter purposes. We could also require
users to enter a client/matter, although I guess they could still slide
in a firm number to not be bothered. Even with potential volume
discounts lowering the cost, Courtlink would still be more expensive,
although not as much as normally.
I am trying to decide if this is worth doing. I would love to hear from
others who have considered this. If there is enough interest, I will
summarize for the list.
thx terry
Terry Psarras
Manager of Litigation Support & Library Services
Carlton Fields PA
Tampa FL
813-229-4114 | tpsarras@carltonfields.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 14 2007 - 20:45:41 PST