Abstract
Legal expert systems are computer applications that can mimic the consultation process of a legal expert to provide advice specific to a given scenario. The core of these systems is the experts’ knowledge captured in a sophisticated and often complex logic or rule base. Such complex systems rely on both knowledge engineers or system programmers and domain experts to maintain and update in response to changes in law or circumstances. This paper describes a pragmatic approach using process modelling techniques that enables a complex legal expert system to be maintained and updated dynamically by a domain expert such as a legal practitioner with little computing knowledge. The approach is illustrated using a case study on the design of an online expert system that allows a user to navigate through complex legal options in the domain of International Family Law.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction (opened for signature 25 October 1980, entered into force 1 December 1983).
Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (opened for signature 19 October 1996, entered into force 1 January 2002).
Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance (opened for signature 23 November 2007, entered into force 1 January 2013).
Although superseded by the 2007 Convention, the United Nations Convention for the Recovery of Maintenance 268 UNTS 3 (opened for signature 20 June 1956, entered into force 25 May 1957) (UNCRAM) remains applicable in respect of many contracting states.
The overlapping scope derives from the 1996 Convention, above n 2, Article 3(b); and the 2007 Convention, above n 3, Article 2(a). See also the Experts’ Group Report, above n 5, at [14].
1996 Convention, above n 2, Article 5(1).
2007 Convention, above n 3, Articles 19(5) and 37.
Experts Group Report, above n 5, at [18].
The following example is adapted from Eleri Jones, Anne-Marie Hutchinson and Richard Kwan “The 1996 Hague Convention: The Fourth Dimension” Family Law Week 30 November 2012 http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed105739. It should be noted that the example would be resolved more simply in a case involving two EU states, where the Brussels IIa Regulation (Regulation (EC) 2201/2003) Articles 61 and 62(1) clarify that a return order made under the 1996 Convention trumps a non-return order made under the 1980 Convention.
As occurred in the case of In the matter of J (a child) [2015] UKSC 70 at [21]–[29] (per Hale LJ).
Jones, Hutchinson and Kwan, above n 28. For example, the order from State A could be said to have priority over the order from State B once the circumstances justifying “urgent measures” lapse. However, this would not extinguish the discretion of the State B court to refuse to recognise the State A order (see Article 23(2) of the 1996 Convention, above n 2).
1980 Convention, above n 1, Article 2; 2007 Convention, above n 3, Articles 12(6), 23(11) and 24(7).
References
Aikenhead M (1995) Legal knowledge-based systems: some observations on the future. Web J Curr Leg Issues 2:72
Doogue CJJM (2017) Traversing the cross-border labyrinth: the development of the Hague Navigation Tool in New Zealand, pp 1–14
Dove IL (1995) Legal expert systems: the end of jurisprudence? J Leg Stud Bus 5:1–28
Franklin J (2012) Discussion paper: how much of commonsense and legal reasoning is formalizable? A review of conceptual obstacles. J Law Probab Risk 11(2–3):225–245. https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgs007
Glennon P (2012) Neota logic. Internship reflection papers. 1052. https://digitalcommons.conncoll.edu/internreflect/1052. Accessed 3 Oct 2018
Groothuis MM, Svensson JS (2000) Expert system support and juridical quality. In Legal knowledge and information systems, JURIX 2000: the thirteenth annual conference, pp 9–18
Harvey D (2017) Artificial intelligence in practice. Auckland District Law Society. Retrieved 26 Feb 2018, from https://www.adls.org.nz/for-the-profession/news-and-opinion/2017/8/25/artificial-intelligence-in-practice/
Konstantinou V, Sykes J, Yannopoulos GN (1994) Legal reasoning methodology: the missing link. Inf Commun Technol Law 3(1):29–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.1994.9965690
Object Management Group (2011) Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN), version 2, pp 1–538. http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0/. Accessed 4 Oct 2018
Stevens C, Barot V, Carter J (2010) The next generation of legal expert systems: new dawn or false dawn? In: SGAI conference proceedings
Susskind RE (1986) Expert systems in law: a jurisprudential approach to artificial intelligence and legal reasoning. Mod Law Rev 49(2):168–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1986.tb01683.x
Thomasset C, Paquin L-C (1989) Expert systems in law and the representation of legal knowledge: can we isolate it from the why and the who? In: Proceedings of the 3rd international congress on logica, informatica, diritto: legal experts systems
Zeleznikow J, Hunter D (1994) Building intelligent legal information systems: representation and reasoning in law (Kluwer computer law series, no. 13). In: Computer law series 13
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dimyadi, J., Bookman, S., Harvey, D. et al. Maintainable process model driven online legal expert systems. Artif Intell Law 27, 93–111 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-018-9231-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-018-9231-3