This seems pretty analogous to Facebook's Timeline and Graph Search features: once released, everyone is outraged over privacy implications, though the information was always there if you wanted to find it.
It's the difference between 'free to all' and 'free to anyone willing to spend $0.10/page'. It may make it harder for someone to exploit, but it is a false sense of security.
It would be better of this content was anonymised so that it cannot be associated with the participants since the names of the people involved are, for the most part, irrelevant to lawyers who need to read this content.
As for the costs, then charging for it does provide a barrier to entry that would hopefully dissuade people from using it for nefarious purposes. A better model would be to recognise that the 'owners' of this content are the people involved in the case and perhaps allow them to license the content of their case and derive income from when it is used. This would address a large number of issues that exist with this system, including privacy.
It's the difference between 'free to all' and 'free to anyone willing to spend $0.10/page'. It may make it harder for someone to exploit, but it is a false sense of security.