Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Introduction to Legal Technology, lecture 7 (2015)

500 views

Published on

Slides for lecture 7 of the course Introduction to Legal Technology at the University of Turku Law School, presented Feb 17 2015.

This lecture is the third of three lectures on specific legal technology applications: decision support, prediction, automation, and self-service.

Published in: Law
  • Hello! I have searched hard to find a reliable and best research paper writing service and finally i got a good option for my needs as ⇒ www.HelpWriting.net ⇐
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Be the first to like this

Introduction to Legal Technology, lecture 7 (2015)

  1. 1. TLS0070 Introduction to Legal Technology Lecture 7 Applications III decision support, prediction, automation, self-service University of Turku Law School 2015-02-17 Anna Ronkainen @ronkaine anna.ronkainen@onomatics.com
  2. 2. Decision support
  3. 3. Decision support -  using technology to create consistency and efficiency in the judiciary, legal aid etc. -  structured approach: gives a checklist for what to consider but may also limit discretion
  4. 4. Non-computerized example: US sentencing guidelines -  introduced on the federal level in 1984, also used on state and local level -  initially considered binding for judges -  43 offence levels, 6 categories for criminal history; up/downward departures from the table allowed when special circumstances -  US v. Booker (2005): mandatory guidelines violated constitutional right to trial by jury -  now no longer binding, but judges still have to give reasons when deviating from the guidelines
  5. 5. Computerized example 1: Previous record in criminal sentencing -  Israeli prototype system for research purposes (see Schild & Kannai 2005) -  rule-based system based on knowledge elicitation from experienced judges -  supports two different approaches for sentencing: utilitarian and desert-based
  6. 6. (Schild and Kannai 2005)
  7. 7. Computerized example 2: Rechtwijzer -  developed at HiiL for Dutch legal aid -  an integrated platform for decision support, originally for marital disputes: -  problem diagnosis -  automatic guidance -  communications + ODR, based on the Modria platform -  final review by a lawyer -  a similar project mainly for the decision support part: Split Up (from Australia, see Bellucci & Zeleznikow 2005)
  8. 8. (Bellucci & Zeleznikow 2005)
  9. 9. (Rechtwijzer demo)
  10. 10. Not just for judges (or even lawyers): Today’s obligatory TrademarkNow slides -  risk meter as decision support for trademark applicants -  trademark lawyers obviously know better, but what about general counsel? -  everything based on a model of likelihood of confusion for trademark pairs (basically decision support for opposition cases), used as basis for relevancy ranking and risk analysis
  11. 11. Predictive analytics
  12. 12. Predictive analytics -  using data about past cases to predict the future -  “The prophecies of what the courts will do in fact, and nothing more pretentious, are what I mean by the law.” – Oliver Wendell Holmes (1897) -  potential for a wealth of approaches, but we’re only just getting started...
  13. 13. Example: Lex Machina -  Stanford CS+Law research project spin-off, founded in 2010 -  “Moneyball for lawyers” -  predictive analytics to support patent litigation, basically looking into everything else except the actual merits of the case
  14. 14. Legal Analytics® by Lex Machina, for example: -  patent portfolio characteristics -  litigation frequency -  duration of trial -  likelihood of settling -  patent troll non-practicing entity? -  opposing counsel characteristics -  assigned judges’ characteristics -  decision history: pro-plaintiff or pro- defendant
  15. 15. Legal automation and self-service
  16. 16. Legal self-service, or DIY law -  nothing fundamentally new: books with sample contracts have been available for ages, and bookstores even sold ready contract templates -  online platforms help you with selecting the right document type and give support for filling the appropriate information -  providers for example: -  LegalZoom -  Rocket Lawyer -  avtal24 / agreement24 (commercial break: http://www.agreement24.com )
  17. 17. Typical offerings -  company incorporation -  corporate filings, tax work -  trademark and patent filings -  compliance filings -  wills and trusts -  prenuptial agreements -  real estate leases and deeds -  often also related services of a lawyer are available from the same provider (typically for an additional fee)
  18. 18. Something completely different: machine translation
  19. 19. Is this a legal technology? -  traditionally legal translation one of the most demanding (and best paid) types of translation work available -  legal translations have to be extremely accurate, but legal concepts in different languages carry all the semantic baggage of their “home” legal systems -  so what on earth could machine translation possibly have to do with it?
  20. 20. Well, it kind of is... -  one of the big issues for the new European Unitary Patent were translations -  in the old European patent system, applications had to be translated manually to languages of all designated jurisdictions -  no more: English/French/German (plus a second language for a transitional period) is enough -  for non-Anglophones, there’s Patent Translate -  additional manual translations may still be needed in court cases
  21. 21. Patent Translate -  machine translation specifically adapted for translating patent documents -  based on Google Translate: collaboration between Google and EPO -  now complete, to/from English for 31 languages, to/from French and German for 27 languages -  http://www.epo.org/searching/free/patent-translate.html -  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjPBUvRegZE
  22. 22. Questions?

×