The Quantification of Law: Counting, Predicting, and Valuating
Open Access
- 4 May 2021
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Queensland University of Technology in Law, Technology and Humans
- Vol. 3 (1), 51-67
- https://doi.org/10.5204/lthj.1966
Abstract
Legal reasoning is increasingly quantified. Developers in the market and public institutions in the legal system are making use of massive databases of court opinions and other legal communications to craft algorithms to assess the effectiveness of legal arguments or predict court judgments; tasks that were once seen as the exclusive province of seasoned lawyers’ obscure knowledge. New legal technologies promise to search heaps of documents for useful evidence, and to analyze dozens of factors to quantify a lawsuit’s odds of success. Legal quantification initiatives depend on the availability of reliable data about the past behavior of courts that institutional actors have attempted to control. The development of initiatives in legal quantification is visible as public bodies craft their own tools for internal use and access by the public, and private companies create new ways to valorize the “raw data” provided by courts and lawyers by generating information useful to the strategies of legal professionals, as well as to the investors that re-valorize legal activity by securitizing legal risk through litigation funding. The article The Quantification of Law: Counting, Predicting, and Valuating by Rafael Viana Ribeiro (Law, Technology and Humans, 3, no 1 (2021): 51-67. https://doi.org/10.5204/lthj.1603) was originally published on March 2, 2021. The author name has been changed at the request of the author. The correction notice can be found at https://doi.org/10.5204/lthj.1965Keywords
This publication has 10 references indexed in Scilit:
- Counting Clicks: Quantification and Variation in Web Journalism in the United States and FranceAmerican Journal of Sociology, 2018
- Challenges When Using Jurimetrics in Brazil—A Survey of CourtsFuture Internet, 2017
- Artificial Intelligence and Legal AnalyticsPublished by Cambridge University Press (CUP) ,2017
- A general approach for predicting the behavior of the Supreme Court of the United StatesPLOS ONE, 2017
- Reified Input/Output logic: Combining Input/Output logic and Reification to represent norms coming from existing legislationJournal of Logic and Computation, 2017
- Automation: is it really different this time?British Journal of Sociology, 2017
- Predicting judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: a Natural Language Processing perspectivePeerJ Computer Science, 2016
- Justice for Profit: A Comparative Analysis of Australian, Canadian and U.S. Third Party Litigation FundingThe American Journal of Comparative Law, 2013
- Extraneous factors in judicial decisionsProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2011
- Commensuration as a Social ProcessAnnual Review of Sociology, 1998