Performance in the Courtroom: Automated Processing and Visualization of Appeal Court Decisions in France

Artificial Intelligence techniques are already popular and important in the legal domain. We extract legal indicators from judicial judgment to decrease the asymmetry of information of the legal system and the access-to-justice gap. We use NLP methods to extract interesting entities/data from judgments to construct networks of lawyers and judgments. We propose metrics to rank lawyers based on their experience, wins/loss ratio and their importance in the network of lawyers. We also perform community detection in the network of judgments and propose metrics to represent the difficulty of cases capitalising on communities features.

[1]  D. Katz,et al.  Measuring, Monitoring and Managing Legal Complexity , 2015 .

[2]  J. Rachlinski,et al.  Judging the Judiciary by the Numbers: Empirical Research on Judges , 2017 .

[3]  Fred Kort.  Predicting Supreme Court Decisions Mathematically: A Quantitative Analysis of the “Right to Counsel” Cases , 1957, American Political Science Review.

[4]  Mattias Derlén,et al.  Goodbye Van Gend En Loos, Hello Bosman? Using Network Analysis to Measure the Importance of Individual CJEU Judgments , 2014 .

[5]  Fabien Tarissan,et al.  Analysing the first case of the International Criminal Court from a network-science perspective , 2016, J. Complex Networks.

[6]  Josef van Genabith,et al.  Predicting the Law Area and Decisions of French Supreme Court Cases , 2017, RANLP.

[7]  Josh Blackman,et al.  Predicting the Behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States: A General Approach , 2014, ArXiv.

[8]  Frank Schilder,et al.  Litigation Analytics: Case Outcomes Extracted from US Federal Court Dockets , 2019, Proceedings of the Natural Legal Language Processing Workshop 2019.

[9]  Jerrold Soh Tsin Howe,et al.  Legal Area Classification: A Comparative Study of Text Classifiers on Singapore Supreme Court Judgments , 2019, Proceedings of the Natural Legal Language Processing Workshop 2019.

[10]  Wai Yin Mok,et al.  Legal Machine-Learning Analysis: First Steps towards A.I. Assisted Legal Research , 2019, ICAIL.

[11]  Zhiyuan Liu,et al.  Automatic Judgment Prediction via Legal Reading Comprehension , 2018, CCL.

[12]  Steven Skiena,et al.  POLYGLOT-NER: Massive Multilingual Named Entity Recognition , 2014, SDM.

[13]  Michalis Vazirgiannis,et al.  Message Passing Attention Networks for Document Understanding , 2019, AAAI.

[14]  Artem Revenko,et al.  Developing and Orchestrating a Portfolio of Natural Legal Language Processing and Document Curation Services , 2019 .

[15]  Michalis Vazirgiannis,et al.  Graph-of-word and TW-IDF: new approach to ad hoc IR , 2013, CIKM.

[16]  Matthew A. Jaro,et al.  Advances in Record-Linkage Methodology as Applied to Matching the 1985 Census of Tampa, Florida , 1989 .

[17]  Steven Skiena,et al.  Polyglot: Distributed Word Representations for Multilingual NLP , 2013, CoNLL.

[18]  John M. Greacen,et al.  From Market Failure to 100% Access: Toward a Civil Justice Continuum , 2015 .

[19]  George Sanchez,et al.  Sentence Boundary Detection in Legal Text , 2019, Proceedings of the Natural Legal Language Processing Workshop 2019.

[20]  Heiko Richter,et al.  The Behavior of Federal Judges. A Theoretical and Empirical Study of Rational Choice , 2014 .

[21]  Valentin Barrière,et al.  May I Check Again? - A simple but efficient way to generate and use contextual dictionaries for Named Entity Recognition. Application to French Legal Texts , 2019, NODALIDA.

[22]  Dennis P. Michalopoulos,et al.  AI-Enabled Litigation Evaluation: Data-Driven Empowerment for Legal Decision Makers , 2019, ICAIL.

[23]  Santo Fortunato,et al.  Community detection in graphs , 2009, ArXiv.

[24]  K. Branting,et al.  Semi-Supervised Methods for Explainable Legal Prediction , 2019, ICAIL.