| Summary: | This dataset of historical poor law cases was created as part of a project aiming to assess the implications of the introduction of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into legal systems in Japan and the United Kingdom. The project was jointly funded by the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council, part of UKRI, and the Japanese Society and Technology Agency (JST), and involved collaboration between Cambridge University (the Centre for Business Research, Department of Computer Science and Faculty of Law) and Hitotsubashi University, Tokyo (the Graduate Schools of Law and Business Administration). As part of the project, a dataset of historic poor law cases was created to facilitate the analysis of legal texts using natural language processing methods. The dataset contains judgments of cases which have been annotated to facilitate computational analysis. Specifically, they make it possible to see how legal terms have evolved over time in the area of disputes over the law governing settlement by hiring. A World Economic Forum meeting at Davos 2019 heralded the dawn of 'Society 5.0' in Japan. Its goal: creating a 'human-centred society that balances economic advancement with the resolution of social problems by a system that highly integrates cyberspace and physical space.' Using Artificial Intelligence (AI), robotics and data, 'Society 5.0' proposes to '...enable the provision of only those products and services that are needed to the people that need them at the time they are needed, thereby optimizing the entire social and organizational system.' The Japanese government accepts that realising this vision 'will not be without its difficulties,' but intends 'to face them head-on with the aim of being the first in the world as a country facing challenging issues to present a model future society.' The UK government is similarly committed to investing in AI and likewise views the AI as central to engineering a more profitable economy and prosperous society. This vision is, however, starting to crystallise in the rhetoric of LegalTech developers who have the data-intensive-and thus target-rich-environment of law in their sights. Buoyed by investment and claims of superior decision-making capabilities over human lawyers and judges, LegalTech is now being deputised to usher in a new era of 'smart' law built on AI and Big Data. While there are a number of bold claims made about the capabilities of these technologies, comparatively little attention has been directed to more fundamental questions about how we might assess the feasibility of using them to replicate core aspects of legal process, and ensuring the public has a meaningful say in the development and implementation. This innovative and timely research project intends to approach these questions from a number of vectors. At a theoretical level, we consider the likely consequences of this step using a Horizon Scanning methodology developed in collaboration with our Japanese partners and an innovative systemic-evolutionary model of law. Many aspects of legal reasoning have algorithmic features which could lend themselves to automation. However, an evolutionary perspective also points to features of legal reasoning which are inconsistent with ML: including the reflexivity of legal knowledge and the incompleteness of legal rules at the point where they encounter the 'chaotic' and unstructured data generated by other social sub-systems. We will test our theory by developing a hierarchical model (or ontology), derived from our legal expertise and public available datasets, for classifying employment relationships under UK law. This will let us probe the extent to which legal reasoning can be modelled using less computational-intensive methods such as Markov Models and Monte Carlo Trees. Building upon these theoretical innovations, we will then turn our attention from modelling a legal domain using historical data to exploring whether the outcome of legal cases can be reliably predicted using various technique for optimising datasets. For this we will use a data set comprised of 24,179 cases from the High Court of England and Wales. This will allow us to harness Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques such as named entity recognition (to identify relevant parties) and sentiment analysis (to analyse opinions and determine the disposition of a party) in addition to identifying the main legal and factual points of the dispute, remedies, costs, and trial durations. By trailing various predictive heuristics and ML techniques against this dataset we hope to develop a more granular understanding as to the feasibility of predicting dispute outcomes and insight to what factors are relevant for legal decision-making. This will allow us to then undertake a comparative analysis with the results of existing studies and shed light on the legal contexts and questions where AI can and cannot be used to produce accurate and repeatable results.
|
|---|
