Renowned legal educator Roscoe Pound stated, “Law must be stable and yet it cannot stand still.” Yet, as Susan Nevelow Mart has demonstrated in a seminal article that the different online research services (Westlaw, Lexis Advance, Fastcase, Google Scholar, Ravel and Casetext) produce significantly different results when researching case law. Furthermore, a recent study of 325 federal courts of appeals decisions, revealed that only 16% of the cases cited in appellate briefs make it into the courts’ opinions. This does not exactly inspire confidence in legal research or its tools to maintain stability of the law. As Robert Berring foresaw, “The world of established sources and sets of law book that has been so stable at to seem inevitable suddenly has vanished. The familiar set of printed case reporters, citators, and second sources that were the core of legal research are being minimized before our eyes.” In this article I focus on Artificial Intelligence (AI) and natural language processing with respect to searching. My article will proceeds as follows. To understand how effective natural language processing is in current legal research, I go about building a model of a legal information retrieval system that incorporates natural language processing. I have had to build my own model because we do not know very much about how the proprietary systems of Westlaw, Lexis, Bloomberg, Fastcase and Casetext work. However, there are descriptions in information science literature and on the Internet of how systems with advanced programing techniques actually work or could work. Next, I compare such systems with the features and search results produced by the major vendors to illustrate the probable use of natural language processing, similar to the models. In addition, the use of word prediction or type ahead techniques in the major research services are studied--particularly, how such techniques can be used to bring secondary resources to the forefront of a search. Finally, I explore how the knowledge gained may help us to better instruct law students and attorneys in the use of the major legal information retrieval systems. My conclusion is that the adeptness of natural language processing is uneven among the various vendors and that what we receive in search results from such systems varies widely depending on a host of unknown variables. Natural language processing has introduced uncertainty to the law. We are a long way from AI systems that understand, let alone search, legal texts in a stable and consistent way.
{"title":"Law, Artificial Intelligence, and Natural Language Processing: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to My Search Results","authors":"P. Callister","doi":"10.31228/osf.io/dw29y","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/dw29y","url":null,"abstract":"Renowned legal educator Roscoe Pound stated, “Law must be stable and yet it cannot stand still.” Yet, as Susan Nevelow Mart has demonstrated in a seminal article that the different online research services (Westlaw, Lexis Advance, Fastcase, Google Scholar, Ravel and Casetext) produce significantly different results when researching case law. Furthermore, a recent study of 325 federal courts of appeals decisions, revealed that only 16% of the cases cited in appellate briefs make it into the courts’ opinions. This does not exactly inspire confidence in legal research or its tools to maintain stability of the law. As Robert Berring foresaw, “The world of established sources and sets of law book that has been so stable at to seem inevitable suddenly has vanished. The familiar set of printed case reporters, citators, and second sources that were the core of legal research are being minimized before our eyes.” \u0000 \u0000In this article I focus on Artificial Intelligence (AI) and natural language processing with respect to searching. My article will proceeds as follows. To understand how effective natural language processing is in current legal research, I go about building a model of a legal information retrieval system that incorporates natural language processing. I have had to build my own model because we do not know very much about how the proprietary systems of Westlaw, Lexis, Bloomberg, Fastcase and Casetext work. However, there are descriptions in information science literature and on the Internet of how systems with advanced programing techniques actually work or could work. Next, I compare such systems with the features and search results produced by the major vendors to illustrate the probable use of natural language processing, similar to the models. In addition, the use of word prediction or type ahead techniques in the major research services are studied--particularly, how such techniques can be used to bring secondary resources to the forefront of a search. Finally, I explore how the knowledge gained may help us to better instruct law students and attorneys in the use of the major legal information retrieval systems. \u0000 \u0000My conclusion is that the adeptness of natural language processing is uneven among the various vendors and that what we receive in search results from such systems varies widely depending on a host of unknown variables. Natural language processing has introduced uncertainty to the law. We are a long way from AI systems that understand, let alone search, legal texts in a stable and consistent way.","PeriodicalId":44477,"journal":{"name":"Law Library Journal","volume":"112 1","pages":"161-212"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2020-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47108305","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
111 Law Libr. J. 165 (2019). For a legal system to succeed, its laws must be available to the public it governs. This article looks at the methods used by different governments throughout history to publicize legislation and the rulers’ possible motivations for publication. It concludes by discussing how the Uniform Electronic Legal Material Act provides the next logical step in this long tradition of publicizing the law.
{"title":"From Stele to Silicon: Publication of Statutes, Public Access to the Law, and the Uniform Electronic Legal Material Act","authors":"Frederick Dingledy","doi":"10.31228/osf.io/en6d4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/en6d4","url":null,"abstract":"111 Law Libr. J. 165 (2019). For a legal system to succeed, its laws must be available to the public it governs. This article looks at the methods used by different governments throughout history to publicize legislation and the rulers’ possible motivations for publication. It concludes by discussing how the Uniform Electronic Legal Material Act provides the next logical step in this long tradition of publicizing the law.","PeriodicalId":44477,"journal":{"name":"Law Library Journal","volume":"111 1","pages":"165-195"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2019-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46778068","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Thomas M. McDade is best known (if not well-known enough) for his seminal 1961 reference bibliography, The Annals of Murder: A Bibliography of Books and Pamphlets on American Murders from Colonial Times to 1900. Beyond that singular text on early American murder trial accounts, though, lies more than 70 additional publications on American legal history, law enforcement, and literature, gathered together for the first time in an annotated bibliography of McDade’s lesser-known writings. The article also examines McDade’s fascinating life and varied career as an early FBI agent, World War II veteran, corporate executive, and true crime chronicler.
{"title":"Beyond The Annals of Murder: The Life and Works of Thomas M. McDade","authors":"J. Behrens","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3068337","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3068337","url":null,"abstract":"Thomas M. McDade is best known (if not well-known enough) for his seminal 1961 reference bibliography, The Annals of Murder: A Bibliography of Books and Pamphlets on American Murders from Colonial Times to 1900. Beyond that singular text on early American murder trial accounts, though, lies more than 70 additional publications on American legal history, law enforcement, and literature, gathered together for the first time in an annotated bibliography of McDade’s lesser-known writings. The article also examines McDade’s fascinating life and varied career as an early FBI agent, World War II veteran, corporate executive, and true crime chronicler.","PeriodicalId":44477,"journal":{"name":"Law Library Journal","volume":"111 1","pages":"281-306"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2018-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49467826","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Research conferences are a tool that should be included in any research or writing instructor's arsenal. In addition to having multiple pedagogical benefits for students, including providing individualized feedback and another opportunity for formative assessment, legal research conferences help students prepare for practice and comprehend that analysis is a critical part of legal research. Learning that research is an analytical exercise rather than a mechanical task will ultimately help them to be better researchers, writers, and attorneys.
{"title":"On Embracing the Research Conference","authors":"Alyson M. Drake","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3126229","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3126229","url":null,"abstract":"Research conferences are a tool that should be included in any research or writing instructor's arsenal. In addition to having multiple pedagogical benefits for students, including providing individualized feedback and another opportunity for formative assessment, legal research conferences help students prepare for practice and comprehend that analysis is a critical part of legal research. Learning that research is an analytical exercise rather than a mechanical task will ultimately help them to be better researchers, writers, and attorneys.","PeriodicalId":44477,"journal":{"name":"Law Library Journal","volume":"111 1","pages":"7-30"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2018-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45582856","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The E-Government Act of 2002 directed the federal courts to provide access to all their written opinions, in text-searchable format, via a website. Ten years later the Judicial Conference of the United States approved national implementation of a comprehensive database of those opinions through a joint venture between the courts and the Government Publishing Office (GPO). Despite the promise implicit in these initiatives, public access to many thousands of federal district court decisions each year remains blocked. They are effectively hidden. Many court websites lack a clear link to opinions, only a bare majority of district courts transmit decisions to the GPO, and far too many courts and judges fail to take the steps necessary for opinion distribution beyond the parties. Using the large volume of district court Social Security litigation to measure and illustrate these failures, the article examines their dimensions, consequences, and causes. It concludes that the problem is a large one, that it poses a major challenge to those carrying out empirical studies and judicial analytics, and that the courts' radical decentralization combined with judicial autonomy will continue to frustrate goals of public access unless serious measures are taken at the national level. Finally, it argues that inclusion in the GPO database of federal judicial opinions should cease being optional.
{"title":"District Court Opinions that Remain Hidden Despite a Longstanding Congressional Mandate of Transparency – The Result of Judicial Autonomy and Systemic Indifference","authors":"Peter W. Martin","doi":"10.31228/osf.io/bpmxe","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/bpmxe","url":null,"abstract":"The E-Government Act of 2002 directed the federal courts to provide access to all their written opinions, in text-searchable format, via a website. Ten years later the Judicial Conference of the United States approved national implementation of a comprehensive database of those opinions through a joint venture between the courts and the Government Publishing Office (GPO). Despite the promise implicit in these initiatives, public access to many thousands of federal district court decisions each year remains blocked. They are effectively hidden. Many court websites lack a clear link to opinions, only a bare majority of district courts transmit decisions to the GPO, and far too many courts and judges fail to take the steps necessary for opinion distribution beyond the parties. \u0000Using the large volume of district court Social Security litigation to measure and illustrate these failures, the article examines their dimensions, consequences, and causes. It concludes that the problem is a large one, that it poses a major challenge to those carrying out empirical studies and judicial analytics, and that the courts' radical decentralization combined with judicial autonomy will continue to frustrate goals of public access unless serious measures are taken at the national level. Finally, it argues that inclusion in the GPO database of federal judicial opinions should cease being optional.","PeriodicalId":44477,"journal":{"name":"Law Library Journal","volume":"110 1","pages":"305-331"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2018-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49238882","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Cognitive computing is revolutionizing finance through the ability to combine structured and unstructured data and provide precise market analysis. It is also revolutionizing medicine by providing well-informed options for diagnoses. Analogously, ROSS, a progeny of IBM’s Watson, is set to revolutionize the legal field by bringing cognitive computing to legal research. While ROSS is currently being touted as possessing the requisite sophistication to perform effortless legal research, there is a real danger in a technology like ROSS causing premature disruption. As in medicine and finance, cognitive computing has the power to make legal research more efficient. But the technology is not ready to replace the need for law students to learn sound legal research process and strategy. When done properly, legal research is a highly creative skill that requires a deep level of analysis. Law librarians must infuse law students with an understanding of legal research process, as well as instruct on the practical aspects of using artificial intelligence responsibly in the face of algorithmic transparency, the duty of technology competence, malpractice pitfalls, and the unauthorized practice of law.
{"title":"2018 A Legal Research Odyssey: Artificial Intelligence as Disruptor","authors":"J. J. Baker","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2978703","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2978703","url":null,"abstract":"Cognitive computing is revolutionizing finance through the ability to combine structured and unstructured data and provide precise market analysis. It is also revolutionizing medicine by providing well-informed options for diagnoses. Analogously, ROSS, a progeny of IBM’s Watson, is set to revolutionize the legal field by bringing cognitive computing to legal research. While ROSS is currently being touted as possessing the requisite sophistication to perform effortless legal research, there is a real danger in a technology like ROSS causing premature disruption. As in medicine and finance, cognitive computing has the power to make legal research more efficient. But the technology is not ready to replace the need for law students to learn sound legal research process and strategy. When done properly, legal research is a highly creative skill that requires a deep level of analysis. Law librarians must infuse law students with an understanding of legal research process, as well as instruct on the practical aspects of using artificial intelligence responsibly in the face of algorithmic transparency, the duty of technology competence, malpractice pitfalls, and the unauthorized practice of law.","PeriodicalId":44477,"journal":{"name":"Law Library Journal","volume":"110 1","pages":"5-30"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2017-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.2978703","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48199238","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The number of headnotes assigned by LexisNexis and West are empirically examined for opinions of the 2009 Supreme Court Term. Additionally, Citizens United is examined in detail to determine the overlap of headnote-worthy language. Discrepancies in the number of headnotes assigned and disagreement as to headnote-worthy language call into question the rigor with which headnotes are created.
{"title":"Surprising Differences: An Empirical Analysis of LexisNexis and West Headnotes in the Written Opinions of the 2009 Supreme Court Term","authors":"Peter A. Hook, Kurt R. Mattson","doi":"10.31228/osf.io/26tvu","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/26tvu","url":null,"abstract":"The number of headnotes assigned by LexisNexis and West are empirically examined for opinions of the 2009 Supreme Court Term. Additionally, Citizens United is examined in detail to determine the overlap of headnote-worthy language. Discrepancies in the number of headnotes assigned and disagreement as to headnote-worthy language call into question the rigor with which headnotes are created.","PeriodicalId":44477,"journal":{"name":"Law Library Journal","volume":"109 1","pages":"557-629"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69639074","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This bibliography gathers, organizes, and annotates relevant law review articles (and one monograph) dealing with legal issues concerning intersexuality. Articles are included to introduce researchers to the intricacies involved in the discussion of intersexuality, to examine issues of medical interventions, and to explore possibilities of judicial relief within the existing framework.
{"title":"Blurred Lines—Intersexuality and the Law: An Annotated Bibliography","authors":"Pat K. Newcombe","doi":"10.31228/osf.io/stcj7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/stcj7","url":null,"abstract":"This bibliography gathers, organizes, and annotates relevant law review articles (and one monograph) dealing with legal issues concerning intersexuality. Articles are included to introduce researchers to the intricacies involved in the discussion of intersexuality, to examine issues of medical interventions, and to explore possibilities of judicial relief within the existing framework.","PeriodicalId":44477,"journal":{"name":"Law Library Journal","volume":"109 1","pages":"221-268"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69640707","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
As researchers increasingly and exclusively conduct legal research online, authors must learn the essential skill of ensuring that their articles are both findable and among the top-ranked results in a search. This article highlights four search engine optimization best practices to apply to legal scholarship: creating effective titles, abstracts, and metadata; cross-discipline marketing to multiple disciplines; crossposting to multiple locations; and converting to searchable PDFs
{"title":"Increasing Article Findability Online: The Four Cs of Search Engine Optimization","authors":"Taryn Marks, Taryn Marks, Avery Le","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3204550","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3204550","url":null,"abstract":"As researchers increasingly and exclusively conduct legal research online, authors must learn the essential skill of ensuring that their articles are both findable and among the top-ranked results in a search. This article highlights four search engine optimization best practices to apply to legal scholarship: creating effective titles, abstracts, and metadata; cross-discipline marketing to multiple disciplines; crossposting to multiple locations; and converting to searchable PDFs","PeriodicalId":44477,"journal":{"name":"Law Library Journal","volume":"30 1","pages":"83-100"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.3204550","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68573884","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Law librarians get to research a lot more than the law. This essay discusses two examples when I got to dabble in lexicography: "race to the bottom" and "till forbid."
法律图书馆员要研究的不仅仅是法律。这篇文章讨论了我开始涉足词典编纂时的两个例子:“race to the bottom”和“till forbid”。
{"title":"Lexicographer for a Day","authors":"Mary Whisner","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2952980","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2952980","url":null,"abstract":"Law librarians get to research a lot more than the law. This essay discusses two examples when I got to dabble in lexicography: \"race to the bottom\" and \"till forbid.\"","PeriodicalId":44477,"journal":{"name":"Law Library Journal","volume":"109 1","pages":"169"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.2952980","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68443987","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：