Concept and Context in Legal Information Retrieval

There exist two broad approaches to information retrieval (IR) in the legal domain: those based on manual knowledge engineering (KE) and those based on natural language processing (NLP). The KE approach is grounded in artificial intelligence (AI) and case-based reasoning (CBR), whilst the NLP approach is associated with open domain statistical retrieval. We provide some original arguments regarding the focus on KE-based retrieval in the past and why this is not sustainable in the long term. Legal approaches to questioning (NLP), rather than arguing (CBR), are proposed as the appropriate jurisprudential and cognitive underpinning for legal IR. Recall within the context of precision is proposed as a better fit to law than the 'total recall' model of the past, wherein conceptual and contextual search are combined to improve retrieval performance for both parties in a dispute.

[1]  Douglas W. Oard,et al.  Overview of the TREC 2007 Legal Track , 2007, TREC.

[2]  Sanda M. Harabagiu,et al.  Question Answering Based on Semantic Structures , 2004, COLING.

[3]  J. C. Smith,et al.  Beyond boolean search: FLEXICON, a legal tex-based intelligent system , 1991, ICAIL '91.

[4]  Robert C. Berring.  Finding the law , 1995 .

[5]  W. Bruce Croft,et al.  Inference networks for document retrieval , 1989, SIGIR '90.

[6]  Howard R. Turtle.  Text retrieval in the legal world , 1995, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[7]  M. E. Maron,et al.  An evaluation of retrieval effectiveness for a full-text document-retrieval system , 1985, CACM.

[8]  Daniel Patterson Dabney.  Statistical modeling of relevance judgments for probabilistic retrieval of American case law , 1993 .

[9]  Kevin D. Ashley,et al.  Using Machine Learning for Assigning Indices to Textual Cases , 1997, ICCBR.

[10]  Michael L. Perlin,et al.  Competence in the Law: From Legal Theory to Clinical Application , 2008 .

[11]  Douglas Walton,et al.  Critical questions in computational models of legal argument , 2005 .

[12]  Marie-Francine Moens,et al.  First steps in building a model for the retrieval of court decisions , 2002, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[13]  Vincent Aleven,et al.  Toward an intelligent tutoring system for teaching law students to argue with cases , 1991, ICAIL '91.

[14]  Howard R. Turtle.  Natural language vs. Boolean query evaluation: a comparison of retrieval performance , 1994, SIGIR '94.

[15]  Claudia Soria,et al.  Automatic semantics extraction in law documents , 2005, ICAIL '05.

[16]  Berthier Ribeiro-Neto,et al.  Concept-based ranking: a case study in the juridical domain , 2004, Inf. Process. Manag..

[17]  Judith P. Dick.  Representation of legal text for conceptual retrieval , 1991, ICAIL '91.

[18]  Robert Berring.  The Heart of Legal Information: The Crumbling Infrastructure of Legal Research , 2007 .

[19]  Daniel P. Dabney.  The Universe of Thinkable Thoughts: Literary Warrant and West's Key Number System , 2009 .

[20]  Carole D. Hafner.  Conceptual organization of case law knowledge bases , 1987, ICAIL '87.

[21]  J. C. Smith.  The use of lexicons in information retrieval in legal databases , 1997, ICAIL '97.

[22]  Ellen M. Voorhees,et al.  Overview of the TREC 2006 , 2007, TREC.

[23]  Stuart A. Sutton.  The Role of Attorney Mental Models of Law in Case Relevance Determinations: An Exploratory Analysis , 1994, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[24]  Robert C. Berring,et al.  Full-Text Databases and Legal Research: Backing into the Future , 1986 .

[25]  Daniel P. Dabney.  The Curse of Thamus: An Analysis of Full-Text Legal Document Retrieval , 1986 .

[26]  Kevin Gerson Jd.  Evaluating Legal Information Retrieval Systems: How Do the Ranked-Retrieval Methods of WESTLAW and LEXIS Measure Up? , 1999 .

[27]  Kevin D. Ashley,et al.  Improving the representation of legal case texts with information extraction methods , 2001, ICAIL '01.