Skip to Content
SustainabilitySustainability
  • Systematic Review
  • Open Access

20 July 2021

24 Pages

A Survey of Research on Data Analytics-Based Legal Tech

,
,
and
Department of Industrial and Management Systems Engineering, Dong-A University, Busan 49315, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Abstract

Data analytics provides important tools and methods for processing the data generated during legal services. This paper aims to provide a systematic survey of the research papers on the application of quantitative data analytics algorithms in the legal domain. To this end, relevant research papers were collected and used to analyze topics and trends of research on data analytics-based Legal Tech. The key findings of this paper are as follows. Firstly, the number of research papers about Legal Tech has increased dramatically recently. Secondly, the application of supervised learning techniques to legal judgment data is a very popular approach in this research area. Thirdly, preprocessing legal documents is a very important procedure as many legal documents exist in text form. Fourthly, artificial neural networks and their variations are widely used in research on data analytics-based Legal Tech. Fifthly, data analytics-based Legal Tech is a multidisciplinary research topic related to computer science and social science, etc.

1. Introduction

Recently, Industry 4.0 has received much attention from both researchers and practitioners. Industry 4.0 technologies, including artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning (ML), robotics, Internet of Things (IoT), wireless communication, big data, and clouds, are greatly affecting entire economies and society [1,2]. Industry 4.0 technologies are recognized as powerful tools for innovating the productivity and competitiveness of a wide range of industries, including manufacturing [3], education [4], and healthcare [5]. The legal industry is no exception, and this paper focuses on the Industry 4.0 technologies applied to legal services. Traditionally, legal services are provided by human experts; however, modern technologies can be used to automate the service procedures of the legal domain. Consequently, Legal Tech has emerged as an important research topic for the legal and IT industries [6,7].
Legal Tech can be defined as modern technologies and IT solutions that can be used to provide some types of legal services [8], and the application of Legal Tech can be classified into eight sub-areas, as shown in Table 1 [9].
Table 1. Sub-areas of Legal Tech.
Applications in the first sub-area—involving lawyer marketplace, lawyer-to-lawyer outsourcing, and social and referral networks—are used to find appropriate legal service providers conveniently. The second sub-area, document automation and assembly, includes information systems that can be used to create and process electronic documents in the legal domain. The objective of the third sub-area, involving practice management, case management for specific practice areas, and legal billing, is to provide tools and methods for managing the business data of lawyers and judges, which include work schedules, client information, and law articles, etc. The fourth sub-area, legal research, focuses on legal data search services based on technologies that can be used to parse and interpret text data in the legal domain. The fifth sub-area of Legal Tech aims to apply predictive analysis methods to a training set collected from a law court in order to obtain patterns or models that can be used to predict the trial results of future law cases. The sixth sub-area, electronic discovery, aims to provide technologies that can be used to identify and collect information in the electronic form required for the process of a trial. The seventh sub-area, online dispute resolution, aims to provide alternative procedures for the resolution of disputes, which can be performed outside of a legal court. The objective of the eighth sub-area, data security technologies, is to protect digital data in the legal domain from cyber-attacks and security threats.
This paper focuses on data analytics-based Legal Tech applications, primarily identified from sub-areas 4 and 5 in Table 1. Data analytics can be defined as a procedure of creating value by processing, analyzing, and interpreting raw data [10]. Popular approaches and techniques of data analytics are AI, ML, and data mining, which are key Industry 4.0 technologies [11,12]. Moreover, data analytics can be a particularly useful tool for legal services, since many legal service procedures involve various data that need to be examined by human experts [13]. In other words, data analytics is a promising tool for automating and innovating existing legal services. There are several examples of commercial data analytics-based Legal Tech solutions, such as CaseText and Ross [7].
Several survey papers related to Legal Tech are listed in Table 2. Table 1 suggests that Legal Tech is a multidisciplinary research area associated with a wide range of disciplines, from law to IT and engineering. Hence, previous literature reviews on Legal Tech tended to consider research papers with a wide range of objectives. For instance, Chen [14] provided a survey of application areas of various Legal Tech solutions. Hongdao et al. [7] investigated on markets and business models of Legal Tech. Janoski-Haehlen [15] reviewed curriculums and legal education programs that consider Legal Tech. Salmerón-Manzano [16] grouped the research area of Legal Tech into several clusters including computer science, justice, legal profession, legal design, law firms, and legal education. These papers have focused primarily on commercial aspects of Legal Tech or its influences on society and legal industries.
Table 2. Survey papers related to Legal Tech.
In contrast, Chalkidis and Kampas [17] provided a literature review on a specific area of Legal Tech, deep learning (DL) applications in the legal domain. Moreover, they suggested three application areas for DL-based Legal Tech, including text classification, information extraction, and information retrieval. DL is one of the AI techniques that can be used to analyze the data collected during legal service procedures. In other words, the paper provided a literature review on Legal Tech applications that can be classified as sub-areas 4 and 5 in Table 1. However, there are many other approaches and methodologies that can also be utilized in those sub-areas. To fill this gap, this paper aims to provide a more comprehensive survey of data analytics applications in the legal domain.
The major contributions of this paper are two-fold. Firstly, a wide range of techniques and algorithms including AI, ML, and data mining are considered. Typically, they are applied to perform conventional data analytics tasks such as classification, regression, clustering, and association, etc. This paper provides a systematic survey of Legal Tech from the perspective of such data analytics tasks. Secondly, additional issues related to data analytics, such as data source and data structure, are also discussed. In tradition, many unstructured data, such as text documents, are generated and utilized during legal service procedures. Unstructured data are not suitable for conventional data analytics methods and algorithms. Thus, the issues related to data, including data types and preprocessing procedures are important for data analytics-based Legal Tech. This paper provides a comprehensive insight into both quantitative methods and data.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 outlines our survey procedure and the research scope of this paper. Section 3 offers some summary statistics of relevant research papers, which suggest recent trends in research on data analytics-based Legal Tech. Section 4 provides discussions on the objectives, algorithms, and data sets of data analytics-based Legal Tech. Finally, Section 5 concludes this paper with some future research directions.

2. Survey Procedure

Figure 1 depicts the overall research procedure of our survey. The first step was to determine the search keywords that would be used to search for research papers relevant to our survey from academic databases. As shown in Table 3, a combination of 2 keywords, keyword 1 and keyword 2, was used for a single search. Keyword 1 was a word chosen from a set of words {‘Legal’, ‘Law’}, while keyword 2 was an element of {‘Data Mining’, ‘Data Analytics’, ‘Text Mining’, ‘Classification’, ‘Machine Learning’, ‘Deep Learning’, ‘Prediction’, ‘Clustering’, ‘Tech’}. The sets of words for keyword 1 and keyword 2 were obtained based on a pilot study and the opinions of experts in data analytics.
Figure 1. Overall research procedure.
Table 3. Keywords and results of research paper search.
The second step was to collect research papers from academic databases and journals. This paper focuses on research papers published in SCI (Science Citation Index), SCIE (Science Citation Index Expanded), SSCI (Social Science Citation Index), and A&HCI (Arts and Humanities Citation Index)-indexed journals, which can be collected by using the search engine provided by the Web of Science. The Web of Science research engine was chosen because it can be used to search research papers published in high-quality academic journals in a wide range of research fields, such as science, technology, social science, and humanities, etc. In other words, research papers published in conference proceedings or other journals are out of the scope of this paper.
Table 3 shows that 3167 research papers were identified from the Web of Science database. Additionally, research papers published in an individual academic journal related to data analytics-based Legal Tech, Artificial Intelligence, and Law, are collected in the second step in Figure 1. However, many of them were irrelevant for our survey on data-analytics-based Legal Tech. For instance, many research papers in the fields of mineralogy or geology were included in the initial search results due to the use of the term ‘Mining’ in keyword 2. Thus, the objective of the third step was to filter out irrelevant research papers from the initial search results. To this end, the authors manually examined the titles, abstracts, and author affiliations of the collected papers. Note that this paper focuses primarily on data analytics applications designed to analyze and process data generated during legal and judicial procedures, which include legal judgments, court records, regulations, and law articles, etc. Such data have been analyzed and processed by human experts, such as lawyers and judges; however, this procedure is expected to be automated by using modern Industry 4.0 technologies. On the contrary, research papers focusing on the analysis of data collected from outside of legal and judicial procedures, including behavioral data of citizens, are not considered in this paper. For instance, research topics related to law enforcement, such as crime detection and digital forensic, and patent mining based on technical documents were filtered out at this step. Furthermore, research papers on logical analysis of legal argumentation, architecture of legal information systems, and legal issues related to AI are excluded from our survey study.
Among the research papers collected by using the Web of Science search engine, 57 papers were identified as being relevant for our survey, as shown in Table 3; however, 18 of them were duplicates. Thus, only 39 papers were used in this paper. In addition, 25 relevant research papers were identified from the aforementioned journal, Artificial Intelligence and Law. Consequently, 64 research papers remained for our survey study after the filtering of irrelevant papers and the removal of duplicates.
In the fourth step of our survey procedure, the 64 identified research papers were carefully reviewed by the authors. Specifically, the authors extracted key features of the research papers, including the publication year, subject area of the journal, country, and continent of the first author’s institute, data source, approaches and algorithms for data analytics, etc. Additionally, these features were summarized using tables or charts.
Finally, the results of the review of the relevant research papers were analyzed and discussed in the fifth step. Consequently, remarkable trends and future research directions for data-analytics-based Legal Tech are provided by our survey study.

5. Conclusions and Further Remarks

5.1. Key Findings

This paper provides a systematic survey of research on Legal Tech, which provides innovative legal services in the Industry 4.0 era. The key findings of our survey are as follows: Firstly, the number of published research papers on data analytics-based Legal Tech dramatically increased in recent years, especially in Asia. Previous surveys suggested that the Legal Tech industry is rapidly growing across the world [7,16]. In contrast, this paper reveals that a specific sub-area of Legal Tech can be a popular research topic in specific regions.
Secondly, many of the associated research papers applied supervised learning techniques to legal judgment data. The most popular type of such application is trial result prediction, where the trial result, such as length of imprisonment and amount of penalty, is used as a target variable. Legal Tech applications for trial result prediction can help human judges to make legal decisions more efficiently. Furthermore, clients can take advantage of such applications in order to assess their chances of winning a case. Another interesting application of supervised learning techniques to legal judgment data is law article prediction, which aims to identify law articles relevant to a case. Law article prediction can also be used as a preprocessing procedure for trial result prediction in that law articles related to a case typically provide valuable information that affects the trial result. In this manner, data analytics enable the provision of legal services more efficiently and accurately [14].
Thirdly, the structured document is the most popular data structure for research on data analytics-based Legal Tech. It is difficult to process and analyze raw documents in text format. Thus, many researchers extract useful features from legal documents and utilize them to convert the documents into tabular form. Such features have to be identified and collected by applying nontrivial techniques such as text mining and NLP.
Fourthly, ANN&DL is the most frequently used algorithm type in research on data analytics-based Legal Tech. ANN&DL can be applied to both classification and regression analyses. Additionally, unsupervised learning tasks can be dealt with by using ANN&DL techniques. In other words, ANN&DL techniques have wide applicability. Moreover, ANN&DL techniques often produce good performances even if the training set is very complex. In this context, ANN&DL is a promising approach for developing data analytics-based Legal Tech applications.
Fifthly, data analytics-based Legal Tech is a multidisciplinary research topic related to computer science, social science, engineering, and mathematics, etc. Especially, Legal Tech emerged as a promising application domain for quantitative methods and algorithms, which were popular research topics for researchers from computer science and engineering.

5.2. Future Research Topics and Challenges

The authors conclude this paper by listing several future research topics and challenges for data analytics-based Legal Tech. The first topic is legal issues related to the applications of data analytics in the legal industry. For instance, misjudgments of data analytics-based Legal Tech applications can cause significant loss of stakeholders and spark arguments over who is responsible. Furthermore, the decision-making model in data analytics-based Legal Tech applications can contain some biases related to discrimination. Thus, reliability, fairness, and scope of application will be relevant research topics for data analytics-based Legal Tech.
The second topic is business and service models based on data analytics-based Legal Tech. Modern Legal Tech enables innovative business and service models in the legal industry [7]. Data analytics-based Legal Tech can also contribute to providing new legal services. For instance, trial result prediction can be used to evaluate the difficulty of a lawsuit, which might affect the pricing of related legal services. The intelligent pricing policy can enable new business models in the legal industry. Acceptance intention of such business and service models is also an important future research topic.
Thirdly, the language of legal documents should be carefully considered in research on data analytics-based Legal Tech. Previous research papers generally consider only a single language. In particular, the structure of the specific language can affect the performance of the preprocessing procedure. An application successfully applied to one language can fail to process legal documents written in another language. Thus, diversity of language is an important challenge for data analytics-based Legal Tech.
Fourthly, the application of unsupervised learning techniques will be increased in the future. Thus far, these techniques are less popular than supervised learning techniques in research on data analytics-based Legal Tech. However, they are successfully applied in a wide range of application areas, including e-commerce, customer relationship management (CRM), marketing, manufacturing, education, and healthcare, etc. Similarly, the legal industry can be another promising application area for unsupervised learning and other techniques.
In this paper, previous studies on Legal Tech are reviewed from the perspective of data analytics, one of the most important Industry 4.0 technologies. The authors believe that this paper provides meaningful insights into the concepts, approaches, and research topics of data analytics-based Legal Tech.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.-W.K.; validation, J.-W.K.; investigation, S.-H.P., D.-G.L. and J.-S.P.; data curation, S.-H.P., D.-G.L. and J.-S.P.; writing—original draft preparation, S.-H.P.; writing—review and editing, J.-W.K.; supervision, J.-W.K.; project administration, J.-W.K.; funding acquisition, J.-W.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea, NRF-2019S1A5C2A03080978. The APC was funded by NRF-2019S1A5C2A03080978.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2019S1A5C2A03080978).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Koh, L.; Orzes, G.; Jia, F.J. The Fourth industrial revolution (industry 4.0): Technologies disruption on operations and supply chain management. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2019, 39, 817–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  2. Piccarozzi, M.; Aquilani, B.; Gatti, C. Industry 4.0 in Management Studies: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  3. Chong, H.R.; Bae, K.H.; Lee, M.K.; Kwon, H.M.; Hong, S.H. Quality strategy for building a smart factory in the fourth industrial revolution. J. Korean Soc. Qual. Manag. 2020, 48, 87–105. [Google Scholar]
  4. Richert, A.; Shehadeh, M.; Plumanns, L.; Groß, K.; Schuster, K.; Jeschke, S. Educating engineers for industry 4.0: Virtual worlds and human-robot-teams: Empirical studies towards a new educational age. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 10–13 April 2016; pp. 142–149. [Google Scholar]
  5. Ajayi, O.O.; Bagula, A.B.; Ma, K. Fourth industrial revolution for development: The relevance of cloud federation in healthcare support. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 185322–185337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  6. Kerikmäe, T.; Hoffmann, T.; Chochia, A. Legal technology for law firms: Determining roadmaps for innovation. Croat. Int. Relat. Rev. 2018, 24, 91–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  7. Hongdao, Q.; Bibi, S.; Khan, A.; Ardito, L.; Khaskheli, M.B. Legal Technologies in Action: The Future of the Legal Market in Light of Disruptive Innovations. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  8. Ebrahim, T.Y. Automation & predictive analytics in patent prosecution: USPTO implications & policy. Ga. St. UL Rev. 2018, 35, 1185. [Google Scholar]
  9. Praduroux, S.; de Paiva, V.; di Caro, L. Legal tech start-ups: State of the art and trends. In Proceedings of the Workshop on ‘Mining and Reasoning with Legal Texts’ Collocated at the 29th International Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, Nice, France, 14 December 2016. [Google Scholar]
  10. Wang, D. Building Value in a World of Technological Change: Data Analytics and Industry 4.0. IEEE Eng. Manag. Rev. 2018, 46, 32–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  11. Lasi, H.; Fettke, P.; Kemper, H.G.; Feld, T.; Hoffmann, M. Industry 4.0. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 2014, 6, 239–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  12. Kayembe, C.; Nel, D. Challenges and opportunities for education in the fourth industrial revolution. Afr. J. Pub. Affairs 2019, 11, 79–94. [Google Scholar]
  13. Moses, L.B.; Chan, J. Using big data for legal and law enforcement decisions: Testing the new tools. UNSW Law J. 2014, 37, 643–678. [Google Scholar]
  14. Chen, D.L. Judicial analytics and the great transformation of American Law. Artif. Intell. Law 2019, 27, 15–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  15. Janoski-Haehlen, E. Robots, blockchain, ESI, oh my!: Why law schools are (or should be) teaching legal technology. Legal Ref. Serv. Q. 2019, 38, 77–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  16. Salmerón-Manzano, E. Legaltech and Lawtech: Global Perspectives, Challenges, and Opportunities. Laws 2021, 10, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  17. Chalkidis, I.; Kampas, D. Deep learning in law: Early adaptation and legal word embeddings trained on large corpora. Artif. Intell. Law 2019, 27, 171–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  18. Wang, R. Legal technology in contemporary USA and China. Comput. Law Secur. Rev. 2020, 39, 105459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  19. Sung, H.C. Can Online Courts Promote Access to Justice? A Case Study of the Internet Courts in China. Comput. Law Secur. Rev. 2020, 39, 105461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  20. Guo, M. Internet court’s challenges and future in China. Comput. Law Secur. Rev. 2021, 40, 105522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  21. Ji, D.; Gao, J.; Fei, H.; Teng, C.; Ren, Y. A deep neural network model for speakers coreference resolution in legal texts. Inf. Process. Manag. 2020, 57, 102365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  22. Ji, D.; Tao, P.; Fei, H.; Ren, Y. An End-to-end joint model for evidence information extraction from court record document. Inf. Process. Manag. 2020, 57, 102305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  23. Borgatti, S.P.; Mehra, A.; Brass, D.J.; Labianca, G. Network Analysis in the Social Sciences. Science 2009, 323, 892–895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  24. Kugler, L. AI judges and juries. Commun. ACM 2018, 61, 19–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  25. Edwards, M.; Rashid, A.; Rayson, P. A Systematic Survey of Online Data Mining Technology Intended for Law Enforcement. ACM Comput. Surv. 2015, 48, 1–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  26. Witten, I.H.; Frank, E.; Hall, M.A.; Pal, C.J. Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques; Morgan Kaufmann: Burlington, MA, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  27. Hardt, M.; Price, E.; Srebro, N. Equality of opportunity in supervised learning. In Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, Barcelona, Spain, 5–10 December 2016; pp. 3323–3331. [Google Scholar]
  28. Kesavaraj, G.; Sukumaran, S. A Study on classification techniques in data mining. In Proceedings of the 2013 Fourth International Conference on Computing, Communications and Networking Technologies (ICCCNT), Tiruchengode, India, 4–6 July 2013; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  29. Tan, P.N.; Steinbach, M.; Kumar, V. Introduction to Data Mining; Addison-Wesley: Boston, MA, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  30. Han, J.; Kamber, M.; Pei, J. Data Mining: Concepts and Techniques; Morgan Kaufmann: Burlington, VT, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  31. Ratner, B. Statistical and Machine-Learning Data Mining: Techniques for Better Predictive Modeling and Analysis of Big Data; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  32. Agrawal, R.; Imieliński, T.; Swami, A. Mining association rules between sets of items in large databases. In Proceedings of the 1993 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, Washington, DC, USA, 25–28 May 1993; pp. 207–216. [Google Scholar]
  33. Agrawal, R.; Mannila, H.; Srikant, R.; Toivonen, H.; Verkamo, A.I. Fast discovery of association rules. Lect. Notes Artif. Int. 1996, 12, 307–328. [Google Scholar]
  34. Pei, J.; Han, J. Constrained frequent pattern mining: A pattern-growth view. SIGKDD Explor. 2002, 4, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  35. Nilsson, N.J. Principles of Artificial Intelligence; Morgan Kaufmann: Burlington, VT, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  36. Piatetsky-Shapiro, G.; Fayyad, U.; Smith, P. From data mining to knowledge discovery: An overview. Lect. Notes Artif. Int. 1996, 1, 35. [Google Scholar]
  37. Simoudis, E. Reality check for data mining. IEEE Ann. Hist. Comput. 1996, 11, 26–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  38. Tan, A.H. Text mining: The state of the art and the challenges. In Proceedings of the PAKDD 1999 Workshop on Knowledge Discovery from Advanced Databases, Beijing, China, 26–28 April 1999; Volume 8, pp. 65–70. [Google Scholar]
  39. Ramos, J. Using TF-IDF to Determine Word Relevance in Document Queries. In Proceedings of the First Instructional Conference on Machine Learning; 2003; Volume 242, pp. 29–48. Available online: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.121.1424&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed on 19 July 2021).
  40. Wallach, H.M. Topic modeling: Beyond bag-of-words. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Machine Learning, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 25–29 June 2006; pp. 977–984. [Google Scholar]
  41. Levy, O.; Goldberg, Y. Dependency-based word embeddings. In Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Baltimore, MD, USA, 22–27 June 2014; pp. 302–308. [Google Scholar]
  42. Lettieri, N.; Altamura, A.; Malandrino, D. The legal macroscope: Experimenting with visual legal analytics. Inf. Vis. 2017, 16, 332–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  43. Petrović, Đ.; Stanković, M. Use of linguistic forms mining in the link analysis of legal documents. Comput. Sci. Inf. Syst. 2018, 15, 369–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  44. Li, G.; Wang, Z.; Ma, Y. Combining Domain Knowledge Extraction with Graph Long Short-Term Memory for Learning Classification of Chinese Legal Documents. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 139616–139627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  45. Sharafat, S.; Nasar, Z.; Jaffry, S.W. Data mining for smart legal systems. Comput. Electr. Eng. 2019, 78, 328–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  46. Thammaboosadee, S.; Watanapa, B. Identification of criminal case diagnostic issues: A modular ANN approach. Int. J. Inf. Tech. Decis. 2013, 12, 523–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  47. Thammaboosadee, S.; Watanapa, B.; Chan, J.H.; Silparcha, U. A Two-Stage Classifier That Identifies Charge and Punishment under Criminal Law of Civil Law System. IEICE Trans. Inf. Syst. 2014, 97, 864–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  48. De Luise, M.D.L.; Pascal, A.; Saad, B.; Álvarez, C.; Pescio, P.; Carrilero, P.; Díaz, J. Intelligent Chatter Bot for Regulation Search. Open Phys. 2016, 14, 473–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  49. Katz, D.M.; Bommarito, M.J.; Blackman, J. A general approach for predicting the behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0174698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  50. Li, S.; Zhang, H.; Ye, L.; Su, S.; Guo, X.; Yu, H.; Fang, B. Prison Term Prediction on Criminal Case Description with Deep Learning. Comput. Mater. Contin. 2020, 62, 1217–1231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  51. Mitchell, J.; Mitchell, S.; Mitchell, C. Machine learning for determining accurate outcomes in criminal trials. Law Probab. Risk 2020, 19, 43–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  52. Ashley, K.D.; Brüninghaus, S. Automatically classifying case texts and predicting outcomes. Artif. Intell. Law 2009, 17, 125–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  53. Boella, G.; Di Caro, L.; Humphreys, L.; Robaldo, L.; Rossi, P.; van der Torre, L. Eunomos, a legal document and knowledge management system for the Web to provide relevant, reliable and up-to-date information on the law. Artif. Intell. Law 2016, 24, 245–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  54. Boella, G.; Di Caro, L.; Leone, V. Semi-automatic knowledge population in a legal document management system. Artif. Intell. Law 2019, 27, 227–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  55. Cheng, Y.; Agrawal, A.; Liu, H.; Choudhary, A. Legislative prediction with dual uncertainty minimization from heterogeneous information. Stat. Anal. Data Min. 2017, 10, 107–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  56. El Jelali, S.; Fersini, E.; Messina, E. Legal retrieval as support to eMediation: Matching disputant’s case and court decisions. Artif. Intell. Law 2015, 23, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  57. Fang, Y.; Tian, X.; Wu, H.; Gu, S.; Wang, Z.; Wang, F.; Li, J.; Weng, Y. Few-shot learning for Chinese legal controversial issues classification. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 75022–75034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  58. Fernandes, W.P.D.; Silva, L.J.S.; Frajhof, I.Z.; Konder, C.N.; Nasser, R.B.; de Carvalho, G.R.; Almeida, G.F.C.F.; Barbosa, S.D.J.; Lopes, H.C.V. Appellate Court Modifications Extraction for Portuguese. Artif. Intell. Law 2019, 28, 1–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  59. Fornaciari, T.; Poesio, M. Automatic deception detection in Italian court cases. Artif. Intell. Law 2013, 21, 303–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  60. Francesconi, E.; Passerini, A. Automatic Classification of Provisions in Legislative Texts. Artif. Intell. Law 2007, 15, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  61. Francesconi, E.; Peruginelli, G. Integrated access to legal literature through automated semantic classification. Artif. Intell. Law 2009, 17, 31–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  62. Guo, X.; Zhang, H.; Ye, L.; Li, S. RnRTD: Intelligent approach based on the relationship-driven neural network and restricted tensor decomposition for multiple accusation judgment in legal cases. Comput. Intel. Neurosc. 2019, 2019, e6705405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  63. Hachey, B.; Grover, C. Extractive summarisation of legal texts. Artif. Intell. Law 2006, 14, 305–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  64. Iftikhar, A.; Jaffry, S.W.U.Q.; Malik, M.K. Information Mining From Criminal Judgments of Lahore High Court. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 59539–59547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  65. Jin, C.; Zhang, G.; Wu, M.; Zhou, S.; Fu, T. Textual content prediction via fuzzy attention neural network model without predefined knowledge. China Commun. 2020, 17, 211–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  66. Lesmo, L.; Mazzei, A.; Palmirani, M.; Radicioni, D.P. TULSI: An NLP system for extracting legal modificatory provisions. Artif. Intell. Law 2013, 21, 139–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  67. Li, J.; Zhang, G.; Yu, L.; Meng, T. Research and design on cognitive computing framework for predicting judicial decisions. J. Signal Process. Sys. 2019, 91, 1159–1167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  68. Li, S.; Zhang, H.; Ye, L.; Guo, X.; Fang, B. MANN: A Multichannel attentive neural network for legal judgment prediction. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 151144–151155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  69. Li, X.; Kang, X.; Wang, C.; Dong, L.; Yao, H.; Li, S. A Neural-Network-Based Model of Charge Prediction via the Judicial Interpretation of Crimes. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 101569–101579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  70. Liu, Y.H.; Chen, Y.L. A two-phase sentiment analysis approach for judgement prediction. J. Inf. Sci. 2018, 44, 594–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  71. Liu, Y.H.; Chen, Y.L.; Ho, W.L. Predicting associated statutes for legal problems. Inf. Process. Manag. 2015, 51, 194–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  72. Ma, Y.; Zhang, P.; Ma, J. An Ontology driven knowledge block summarization approach for Chinese judgment document classification. IEEE Access 2018, 6, 71327–71338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  73. Mahfouz, T.; Kandil, A. Litigation Outcome Prediction of Differing Site Condition Disputes through Machine Learning Models. J. Comput. Civ. Eng. 2012, 26, 298–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  74. Medvedeva, M.; Vols, M.; Wieling, M. Using machine learning to predict decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. Artif. Intell. Law 2020, 28, 237–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  75. Nanda, R.; Siragusa, G.; Di Caro, L.; Boella, G.; Grossio, L.; Gerbaudo, M.; Costamagna, F. Unsupervised and supervised text similarity systems for automated identification of national implementing measures of European directives. Artif. Intell. Law 2019, 27, 199–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  76. Nguyen, T.-S.; Nguyen, L.-M.; Tojo, S.; Satoh, K.; Shimazu, A. Recurrent neural network-based models for recognizing requisite and effectuation parts in legal texts. Artif. Intell. Law 2018, 26, 169–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  77. Pudaruth, S.; Soyjaudah, K.M.S.; Gunputh, R.P. An innovative multi-segment strategy for the classification of legal judgments using the k-nearest neighbour classifier. Complex Intell. Syst. 2018, 4, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  78. Qiu, M.; Zhang, Y.; Ma, T.; Wu, Q.; Jin, F. Convolutional-neural-network-based Multilabel Text Classification for Automatic Discrimination of Legal Documents. Sens. Mater. 2020, 32, 2659–2672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  79. Raghupathi, V.; Zhou, Y.; Raghupathi, W. Legal Decision Support: Exploring Big Data Analytics Approach to Modeling Pharma Patent Validity Cases. IEEE Access 2018, 6, 41518–41528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  80. Saravanan, M.; Ravindran, B. Identification of Rhetorical Roles for Segmentation and Summarization of a Legal Judgment. Artif. Intell. Law 2010, 18, 45–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  81. Shulayeva, O.; Siddharthan, A.; Wyner, A. Recognizing cited facts and principles in legal judgements. Artif. Intell. Law 2017, 25, 107–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  82. Tran, O.T.; Ngo, B.X.; Le Nguyen, M.; Shimazu, A. Automated reference resolution in legal texts. Artif. Intell. Law 2014, 22, 29–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  83. Waltl, B.; Bonczek, G.; Scepankova, E.; Matthes, F. Semantic types of legal norms in German laws: Classification and analysis using local linear explanations. Artif. Intell. Law 2019, 27, 43–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  84. Yamada, H.; Teufel, S.; Tokunaga, T. Building a corpus of legal argumentation in Japanese judgement documents: Towards structure-based summarisation. Artif. Intell. Law 2019, 27, 141–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  85. Yang, C.C.; Luk, J. Automatic generation of English/Chinese thesaurus based on a parallel corpus in laws. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2003, 54, 671–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  86. Yao, F.; Sun, X.; Yu, H.; Yang, Y.; Zhang, W.; Fu, K. Gated hierarchical multi-task learning network for judicial decision prediction. Neurocomputing 2020, 411, 313–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  87. Guo, X.; Zhang, H.; Ye, L.; Li, S. TenLa: An approach based on controllable tensor decomposition and optimized lasso regression for judgement prediction of legal cases. Appl. Intell. 2020, 51, 2233–2252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  88. Guo, X.; Zhang, H.; Ye, L.; Li, S.; Zhang, G. TenRR: An Approach Based on Innovative Tensor Decomposition and Optimized Ridge Regression for Judgment Prediction of Legal Cases. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 167914–167929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  89. Tran, V.; Le Nguyen, M.; Tojo, S.; Satoh, K. Encoded summarization: Summarizing documents into continuous vector space for legal case retrieval. Artif. Intell. Law 2020, 28, 441–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  90. Moens, M.-F.; Uyttendaele, C.; Dumortier, J. Abstracting of legal cases: The potential of clustering based on the selection of representative objects. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 1999, 50, 151–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  91. Acharya, H.R.; Bhat, A.D.; Avinash, K.; Srinath, R. LegoNet-classification and extractive summarization of Indian legal judgments with capsule networks and sentence embeddings. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2020, 39, 2037–2046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  92. Sadeghian, A.; Sundaram, L.; Wang, D.Z.; Hamilton, W.F.; Branting, K.; Pfeifer, C. Automatic semantic edge labeling over legal citation graphs. Artif. Intell. Law 2018, 26, 127–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  93. Bartolini, R.; Lenci, A.; Montemagni, S.; Pirrelli, V.; Soria, C. Automatic classification and analysis of provisions in Italian legal texts: A case study. In Proceedings of the OTM Confederated International Conferences on the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems, Agia Napa, Cyprus, 25–29 October 2004; pp. 593–604. [Google Scholar]
  94. Boulet, R.; Mazzega, P.; Bourcier, D. A network approach to the French system of legal codes—Part I: Analysis of a dense network. Artif. Intell. Law 2011, 19, 333–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  95. Boulet, R.; Mazzega, P.; Bourcier, D. Network approach to the French system of legal codes part II: The role of the weights in a network. Artif. Intell. Law 2018, 26, 23–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  96. Chen, Y.L.; Liu, Y.H.; Ho, W.L. A text mining approach to assist the general public in the retrieval of legal documents. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2013, 64, 280–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  97. De Araujo, D.A.; Rigo, S.J.; Barbosa, J.L.V. Ontology-based information extraction for juridical events with case studies in Brazilian legal realm. Artif. Intell. Law 2017, 25, 379–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  98. Fan, H.; Li, H. Retrieving similar cases for alternative dispute resolution in construction accidents using text mining techniques. Autom. Constr. 2013, 34, 85–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  99. Hasan, I.; Parapar, J.; Barreiro, A. Improving the extraction of text in pdfs by simulating the human reading order. J. Univers. Comput. Sci. 2012, 18, 623–649. [Google Scholar]
  100. Herrera, M.; Candia, C.; Rivera, D.; Aitken, D.; Brieba, D.; Boettiger, C.; Donoso, G.; Godoy-Faúndez, A. Understanding water disputes in Chile with text and data mining tools. Water Int. 2019, 44, 302–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  101. Le, T.T.N.; Shirai, K.; Le Nguyen, M.; Shimazu, A. Extracting indices from Japanese legal documents. Artif. Intell. Law 2015, 23, 315–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  102. Saravanan, M.; Ravindran, B.; Raman, S. Improving legal information retrieval using an ontological framework. Artif. Intell. Law 2009, 17, 101–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  103. Abiodun, O.I.; Jantan, A.; Omolara, A.E.; Dada, K.V.; Mohamed, N.A.; Arshad, H. State-of-the-art in artificial neural network applications: A survey. Heliyon 2018, 4, e00938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  104. Pouyanfar, S.; Sadiq, S.; Yan, Y.; Tian, H.; Tao, Y.; Rayes, M.P.; Shyu, M.L.; Chen, S.C.; Lyengar, S.S. A survey on deep learning: Algorithms, techniques, and applications. ACM Comput. Surv. 2018, 51, 1–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.