Automating Judicial Document Drafting: A Discourse-Based Approach

Document drafting is a central judicial problem-solving activity. Development of automated systems to assist judicial document drafting has been impeded by the absence of an explicit model of (1) the connection between the document drafter’s goals and the text intended to achieve those goals, and (2) the rhetorical constraints expressing the stylistic and discourse conventions of the document’s genre. This paper proposes a model in which the drafter’s goals and the stylistic and discourse conventions are represented in a discourse structure consisting of a tree of illocutionary and rhetorical operators with document text as leaves. A document grammar based on the discourse structures of a representative set of documents can be used to synthesize a wide range of additional documents from sets of case facts. The applicability of this model to a representative class of judicial orders — jurisdictional show-cause orders — is demonstrated by illustrating (1) the analysis of show-cause orders in terms of discourse structures, (2) the derivation of a document grammar from discourse structures of two typical show-cause orders, and (3) the synthesis of a new show-cause order from the document grammar.

[1]  Vibhu O. Mittal Generating Natural Language Descriptions With Integrated Text and Examples , 1998 .

[2]  Michael Elhadad,et al.  FUF: the Universal Unifier User Manual Version 5.2 , 1991 .

[3]  Marek J. Sergot,et al.  A constraint-driven system for contract assembly , 1995, ICAIL '95.

[4]  Eduard H. Hovy,et al.  Automated Discourse Generation Using Discourse Structure Relations , 1993, Artif. Intell..

[5]  Kathleen R. McKeown Generating natural language text in response to questions about database structure , 1982 .

[6]  C. Raymond Perrault,et al.  Elements of a Plan-Based Theory of Speech Acts , 1979, Cogn. Sci..

[7]  Daniel D. Suthers A task‐appropriate hybrid architecture for explanation , 1991 .

[8]  Candace L. Sidner,et al.  Attention, Intentions, and the Structure of Discourse , 1986, CL.

[9]  J. Austin How to do things with words , 1962 .

[10]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  PLAID: proactive legal assistance , 1995, ICAIL '95.

[11]  Kathleen McKeown,et al.  Generating Concise Natural Language Summaries , 1995, Inf. Process. Manag..

[12]  James C. Lester,et al.  Developing and Empirically Evaluating Robust Explanation Generators: The KNIGHT Experiments , 1997, Comput. Linguistics.

[13]  Karl Branting A reduction-graph model of ratio decidendi , 1993, ICAIL '93.

[14]  Michael Elhadad,et al.  Using argumentation to control lexical choice: a functional unification implementation , 1993 .

[15]  Eduard H. Hovy,et al.  Pragmatics and Natural Language Generation , 1990, Artif. Intell..

[16]  Johanna D. Moore Participating in explanatory dialogues , 1994 .

[17]  James C. Lester,et al.  Justification Structures for Document Reuse , 1996, EWCBR.

[18]  Daniel D. Suthers,et al.  An analysis of explanation and its implications for the design of explanation planners , 1993 .

[19]  Owen Rambow,et al.  On the need for domain communication knowledge , 1991 .

[20]  Kathleen McKeown,et al.  Text generation: using discourse strategies and focus constraints to generate natural language text , 1985 .

[21]  S. Toulmin The uses of argument , 1960 .

[22]  C. C. Marshall,et al.  Representing the structure of a legal argument , 1989, ICAIL '89.

[23]  Karl Branting An issue-oriented approach to judicial document assembly , 1993, ICAIL '93.

[24]  William C. Mann,et al.  RHETORICAL STRUCTURE THEORY: A THEORY OF TEXT ORGANIZATION , 1987 .

[25]  James C. Lester,et al.  Scaling Up Explanation Generation: Large-Scale Knowledge Bases and Empirical Studies , 1996, AAAI/IAAI, Vol. 1.

[26]  Cécile Paris,et al.  Tailoring Object Descriptions to a User's Level of Expertise , 1988, Comput. Linguistics.

[27]  James F. Allen Natural language understanding , 1987, Bejnamin/Cummings series in computer science.

[28]  Mark T. Maybury,et al.  Communicative Acts for Explanation Generation , 1992, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[29]  William R. Swartout,et al.  A Reactive Approach to Explanation: Taking the User’s Feedback into Account , 1991 .

[30]  Marc Lauritsen Knowing documents , 1993, ICAIL '93.

[31]  Alison Cawsey,et al.  Explanation and interaction - the computer generation of explanatory dialogues , 1992, ACL-MIT press series in natural language processing.

[32]  Andrew Stranieri,et al.  The split-up system: integrating neural networks and rule-based reasoning in the legal domain , 1995, ICAIL '95.

[33]  H. Grice Logic and conversation , 1975 .

[34]  A. Koller,et al.  Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language , 1969 .

[35]  Douglas E. Appelt,et al.  Planning English Referring Expressions , 1985, Artif. Intell..

[36]  Laxmikant V. Kalé,et al.  A specialized expert system for judicial decision support , 1989, ICAIL '89.

[37]  Johanna D. Moore,et al.  Planning Text for Advisory Dialogues: Capturing Intentional and Rhetorical Information , 1993, CL.

[38]  Jerry R. Hobbs Coherence and Coreference , 1979, Cogn. Sci..