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

Decision support

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

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

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

(Schild and Kannai 2005)

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)

(Bellucci & Zeleznikow 2005)

(Rechtwijzer demo)

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

Predictive analytics

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...

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

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

Legal automation and self-service

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 )

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)

Something completely different: machine translation

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?

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

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

Questions?