Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Hyperrealistic Jurisprudence: The Digital Age and the (Un)Certainty of Judge Analytics

  • Published:
International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article is the first attempt to justify the "next" milestone in the development of legal realism: hyperrealism. The implications of digitalization have become the new fuel for the legal realist's jurisprudence prediction theory, that is, empirical research to predict the judge's or the court's decision. Indeed, that was impossible for American realists in the early twentieth century, and all the attempts failed. Therefore, tools such as Judicial Analytics allow us to prove that personal motives and prejudices affect a dispute's resolution. Based on a systemic, comparative, and interdisciplinary analysis that intermingles legal theory, data analytics and digital technologies, the article substantiates the concept of hyperrealism itself. It evaluates the advantages and disadvantages of its primary tool—judicial analytics. The authors state the necessity of creating regulatory mechanisms of "curbing" to use them to improve justice and minimize the risk of rights violations. They propose using tools of expert evaluation, standardization, and ethical regulation of forensic analysis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Matthew 9:17 of the King James Bible.

  2. See Ambrogi [3]; Aletras et al. [2]; and Medvedeva et al. [64].

  3. This paper focuses on the legal realist’s jurisprudence prediction theory, even though we cannot connect it to all realists. See Leiter [48].

  4. On Coubert’s Realism see Fried [32].

  5. On Honoré de Balzac see Umbach et al. [86].

  6. About Machado de Assis see Machado [60].

  7. About Antero de Quental see: Casemiro and Rodrigues [13].

  8. See https://artincontext.org/hyperrealism-art/. Accessed 28 January 2023.

  9. See https://www.plusonegallery.com/blog/28/. Accessed 28 January 2023.

  10. See https://artincontext.org/hyperrealism-art/. Accessed 28 January 2023.

  11. See also Schlegel [77].

  12. See also Leiter [49].

  13. See also Horwitz [42].

  14. See examples of laissez-faire in caselaw: Allgeyer v. State of Louisiana (1897); Lochner v. New York (1905) e Coppage v. Kansas (1915).

  15. See also Ferreira [23].

  16. See Actlyzer. https://www.fujitsu.com/global/about/research/technology/actlyzer/ Accessed 28 January 2023.

  17. About the digital age, see Kapczynski [45].

  18. JURI reads published documents from previous years and decisions of the cases judged by the European Court of Human Rights and predicts decisions the Court will make, available: https://jurisays.com/. Accessed 28 January 2023.

  19. See: Context Judge Analytics (LexisNexis). https://www.lexisnexis.ca/pdf/2021/Context-Getting-Started-EN.pdf. Accessed 28 January 2023; Premonition Analytics. https://premonition.ai/about-us/. Accessed 28 January 2023; Bloomberg Law’s Comparative Analytics tool. https://pro.bloomberglaw.com/legal-analytics/. Accessed 28 January 2023; Evaluate your judge (Thompson Reuters Litigation Analytics). https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/products/westlaw-edge/litigation-analytics Accessed 28 January 2023; Predictice. https://predictice.com/fr. Accessed 28 January 2023; TCC Jurimetria. https://giters.com/jurimetry?ysclid=ldk8dp9c3j655957234 Accessed 28 January 2023.

  20. See Arbitrator Research Tool, available: https://globalarbitrationreview.com/tools/arbitrator-research-tool. Accessed 28 January 2023.

  21. See Conflict Checker. https://jusmundi.com/en/conflict-checker. Accessed 28 January 2023.

  22. See Arbitrator Practice Plus, available: https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/solutions/kluwerarbitration/practiceplus Accessed 28 January 2023.

  23. The impartiality of some French judges was undermined by machine learning. https://medium.com/@supralegem/the-impartiality-of-some-judges-undermined-by-artificial-intelligence-c54cac85c4c4. Accessed 28 January 2023.

  24. LOI n° 2019–222 du 23 mars 2019 de programmation 2018–2022 et de réforme pour la justice (1), 24 March 2019, Article 33, France Bans Judge Analytics, 5 Years In Prison For Rule Breakers. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/article_jo/ Accessed 28 January 2023; See also https://www.artificiallawyer.com/2019/06/04/france-bans-judge-analytics-5-years-in-prison-for-rule-breakers/. Accessed 28 January 2023.

  25. France Bans Judges’ Decision Analytics, 5 Years in Prison For Rule Breakers. https://www.thelibertybeacon.com/france-bans-judges-decision-analytics-5-years-in-prison-for-rule-breakers/. Accessed 28 January 2023.

  26. See Legal Services Society: Separation, Divorce & Family Matters. 2018; MyLawBC, http://mylawbc.com/paths/family/. Accessed: 28 January 2023.

  27. Artificial Intelligence and the Court, https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/2022-09/Paper%201_AI%20Foundational%20Issues_NIST_FINAL.pdf Accessed 28 April 2023.

  28. See Associação Brasileira de Jurimetria. https://abj.org.br/. Accessed 28 January 2023.

  29. See Tracxn. https://tracxn.com/d/companies/jurimetrics/__l6-xrgnv1OPbFHPz0dkkzbZiM86xjaxZI63A64akzFU. Accessed 28 April 2023.

  30. See Relativity. https://relativity.com/ediscovery-software/relativityone/. Accessed 28 April 2023.

  31. See Siren. https://siren.io/platform-overview/. Accessed 28 April 2023.

  32. JetLex AI, http://jetlex.ai/. Accessed 28 April 2023.

  33. The Rise of China’s Advanced Legal Tech Scene, https://www.artificiallawyer.com/2017/03/29/the-rise-of-chinas-advanced-legal-tech-scene/

References

  1. Agniel, D., I.K. Kohane, and G.M. Weber. 2018. Biases in Electronic Health Record Data due to Processes Within the Healthcare System: Retrospective Observational Study. BMJ 361: k1479. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k1479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Aletras, N., D. Tsarapatsanis, D. Preoţiuc-Pietro, and V. Lampos. 2016. Predicting Judicial Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: a Natural Language Processing perspective. PeerJ Computer Science 2: e93. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ambrogi, R. 2018. This Tech Can Turn the Tables in Litigation. Above The Law. https://bit.ly/358X4qn. Accessed 28 Jan 2023.

  4. Atik, J., and V. Jeutner. 2021. Quantum Computing and computational law. Law, Innovation and Technology 13 (2): 302–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2021.1977216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Baetjer, E.G. 1930. Policy and Program of the Johns Hopkins Institute of Law. American Bar Association Journal 5 (16): 312–316.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Baeza-Yates, R. 2016. Data and algorithmic bias in the web. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Web Science. https://doi.org/10.1145/2908131.2908135.

  7. Benesty, M. 2019. The Judge Statistical Data Ban—My Story—Michaël Benesty. Artificial Lawyer. https://www.artificiallawyer.com/2019/06/07/the-judge-statistical-data-ban-my-story-michael-benesty/. Accessed 28 Jan 2023.

  8. Bingham, J.W. 1912. What is the Law? Michigan Law Review 11 (1): 1–25. https://doi.org/10.2307/1275560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Borden, B.B., and J. Baron. 2014. Finding the Signal in the Noise: Information Governance, Analytics, and the Future of Legal Practice. Richmond Journal of Law & Technology 20: 7–16.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Buscaglia, E., and P.B. Stephan. 2005. An Empirical Assessment of the Impact of Formal Versus Informal Dispute Resolution on Poverty: A Governance-based Approach. International Review of Law and Economics 1 (25): 89–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2004.06.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Campbell, David, and Philip Thomas. 2016. Fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reasoning by Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld. Oxfordshire: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315254821-7.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Cardozo, B.N. 2009. The nature of the Judicial Process. Kentucky: Feather Trail Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Casemiro, Ch.B., and J.V.P. Rodrigues. 2021. A Influência de Antero de Quental no Realismo português: Contradições de um poeta e Doutrinário. Revista Acadêmica Ensino de Ciências e Tecnologias IFSP Campus Cubatão 9: 138–160.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cook, W.W. 1924. The Logical and Legal Bases of the Conflict of Laws. The Yale Law Journal 33 (5): 457–488. https://doi.org/10.2307/788019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cook, W.W. 1927. Scientific Method and The Law. American BAR Association Journal 13: 303–309.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Cook, W.W. 1941. My Philosophy of Law: Credos of Sixteen American Scholars. Boston: Boston Law Book Co.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Corbin, A.L. 1914. Option Contracts. The Yale Law Journal 23 (8): 641–663. https://doi.org/10.2307/785174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Corbin, A.L. 1914. The Law and The Judges. Yale Review 3: 234–250.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Davenport, T.H., and J. Kim. 2013. Keeping up with the quants: Your guide to understanding and using analytics. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Decew, J.W. 1985. Realities about Legal Realism. Law and Philosophy 4: 405–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Duxbury, N. 1995. Patterns of American Jurisprudence. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Edizel, B., F. Bonchi, S. Hajian, A. Panisson, and T. Tassa. 2020. FaiRecSys: Mitigating Algorithmic Bias in Recommender Systems. International Journal of Data Science and Analytics 9 (2): 197–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ferreira, D.B. 2007. Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld e os Conceitos Fundamentais do Direito. Revista Direito Estado e Sociedade 31: 33–57. https://doi.org/10.17808/des.31.259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ferreira, D.B. 2012. Ensino jurídico e teoria do direito nos EUA: A dupla faceta do Realismo Jurídico Norte-Americano. Curitiba: Juruá Editora.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ferreira, D.B. 2012. Realismo Jurídico Norte-Americano: Origem, Contribuições e Principais Autores. Revista Direito Estado e Sociedade 40: 6–33. https://doi.org/10.17808/des.40.163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ferreira, Daniel, Cristiane Giovannini, Elizaveta Gromova, and Gustavo Schmidt. 2022. Arbitration Chambers and Trust in Technology Provider: Impacts of Trust in Technology Intermediated Dispute Resolution Proceedings. Technology in Society 2 (68): 101872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ferreira, D.B., and P.H.V. Chrismann. 2017. O Direito Subjetivo nas Concepções de Hans Kelsen e Alf Ross. Civilistica.com 6 (1): 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ferreira, D.B., and R.C.R. Oliveira. 2019. A Arbitragem no Direito Administrativo: Perspectivas Atuais e futuras através de um estudo comparativo e temático Entre Brasil e Portugal. Revista Brasileira de Alternative Dispute Resolution - RBADR 1 (2): 139–158.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Floridi, L. 2019. Translating Principles into Practices of Digital Ethics: Five risks of being Unethical. Philosophy & Technology 32 (2): 185–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-019-00354-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Fortney, S. 2019. Online Legal Document Providers and the Public Interest: Using a Certification Approach to Balance Access to Justice and Public Protection. Oklahoma Law Review 72 (1): 91–123.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Frank, J. 2009. Law and the modern mind. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers edition.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Fried, M. 1990. Coubert’s realism. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. George, T.E., G.M. Gulati, and A. McGinley. 2010. The New Old Legal Realism. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1647179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Gerjuoy, E. 1995. Science and Technology Resources for the Courts. Technology in Society 17 (1): 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-791x(94)00023-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Gilmore, G., and P. Bobbitt. 2014. The ages of American law. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Grahn-Farley, M. 2001. The Law Room: Hyperrealist Jurisprudence & Postmodern Politics. New England Law Review 36 (1): 29–58.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Greenstein, S. 2022. Preserving the Rule of Law in the era of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Artifical Intelligence and Law 30: 291–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-021-09294-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Gromova, E.A., and S.A. Petrenko. 2023. Quantum Law: The beginning. Journal of Digital Technologies and Law 1: 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Hagihara, A., and K. Tarumi. 2007. Association between Physicians’ Communicative Behaviors and Judges’ Decisions in Lawsuits on Negligent Care. Health Policy 83 (2–3): 213–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2007.01.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Hohfeld, W.N. 2003. Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning. The Yale Law Journal 26 (8): 710–770. https://doi.org/10.2307/786270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Hohfeld, W.N. 2003. A Vital School of Jurisprudence and Law: Have American Universities awakened to the enlarged opportunities and responsibilities of the present Day? In Fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reasoning and other legal essays, 332–384. New Jersey: The Legal Classics Library.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Holmes, O.W., Jr. 2004. The common law. New York: Barnes & Noble Edition.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Horwitz, M.J. 1977. The transformation of American Law: 1780–1860. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  44. Hull, N.E.H. 1997. Roscoe Pound & Karl Llewellyn, Searching for an American Jurisprudence. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Jobin, A., M. Ienca, and E. Vayena. 2019. The Global Landscape of AI Ethics Guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence 1 (9): 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1038/S42256-019-0088-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Kalman, L. 2001. Legal realism at Yale: 1927–1960. New Jersey: The Lawbook Exchange.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Kapczynski, A. 2020. The Law of Information Capitalism. The Yale Law Journal 129 (5): 1460–1515.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Kirk, H.R., F. Jun, H. Volpin, E. Iqbal, F. Benussi, A. Dreyer, and Y. Shtedritski. 2021. Bias Out of-the-Box: An Empirical Analysis of Intersectional Occupational Biases in Popular Generative Language Models. Advances in neural information processing systems 34: 2611–2624.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Landers, S. 1990. Wittgenstein, Realism, and CLS: Undermining Rule Scepticism. Law and Philosophy 9: 177–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Laukyte, M. 2023. Artificial intelligence and analytics: Dilemmas for justice, employment, and human rights. In AI and human rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Leiter, B. 2011. Naturalized Jurisprudence and American Legal Realism Revisited. Law and Philosophy 30: 499–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Leiter, B. 2013. Legal Realisms, Old and New. Valparaiso University Law Review 47 (4): 67–81.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Liu, M., Ch. Li, Sh. Wang, and Q. Li. 2023. Digital Transformation, Risk-taking, and Innovation: Evidence from Data on Listed Enterprises in China. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 8: 100332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2023.100332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Livermore, M., and Rockmore, D. 2019. France kicks data scientists out of its courts. Slate. https://slate.com/technology/2019/06/france-has-banned-judicial-analytics-to-analyze-the-courts.html. Accessed: 28 Jan 2023.

  55. Llewellyn, K.N. 1930. A Realistic Jurisprudence–The Next Step. Columbia Law Review 4 (30): 431–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Llewellyn, K.N. 1931. Some Realism about Realism–Responding to Dean Pound. Harvard Law Review 44: 1222–1264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Llewellyn, K.N. 1935. On What is Wrong with So-Called Legal Education. Columbia Law Review 35: 651–678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Llewellyn, K.N. 1945. The Place of Skills in Legal Education. Columbia Law Review 45: 345–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Llewellyn, K.N. 2008. The bramble bush: The classic lectures on the law and law school. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Loevinger, L. 1949. Jurimetrics the Next Step Forward. Minnesota Law Review 33 (5): 455–493.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Loevinger, L. 1963. Jurimetrics: The Methodology of Legal Inquiry. Law and Contemporary Problems 28: 5–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Macaulay, S. 2005. The new versus the old legal realism: ‘Things ain’t what they used to be. In Stewart Macaulay: Selected works. Law and philosophy library, ed. D. Campbell, 495–529. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Machado, G.M. 1989. O Discurso Realista em Flaubert e em Machado de Assis. Revista de Letras 29: 55–70.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Martin, M. 1997. Legal realism: American and Scandinavian. New York: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  65. McGill, Jena, and Amy Salyzyn. 2021. Judging by Numbers: How Will Judicial Analytics Impact the Justice System and Its Stakeholders? Dalhousie Law Journal 44 (1): 250–284.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Mediano, A.P., and D. Carrasco. 2019. Ideology Beyond Partisanship: The Behavior of Judges on Freedom of Information Cases in Chile. Government Information Quarterly 36 (3): 614–623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.05.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Medvedeva, M., M. Wieling, and M. Vols. 2023. Rethinking the Field of Automatic Prediction of Court Decisions. Artificial Intelligence and Law 31: 195–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-021-09306-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Miles, Th.J., and C.R. Sunstein. 2008. The New Legal Realism. University of Chicago Law Review 75 (2): 831–851.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Millard, E. 2014. Alf Ross and Realist Conceptions of Legislation. The Theory and Practice of Legislation 1 (1): 77–89.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Mischkowski, D., A. Glöckner, and P. Lewisch. 2021. Information Search, Coherence Effects, and their Interplay in Legal Decision Making. Journal of Economic Psychology 87: 102445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2021.102445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Moore, U., and C.C. Callahan. 1943. Law and Learning Theory: A Study in Legal Control. The Yale Law Journal 53 (1): 1–136. https://doi.org/10.2307/792883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Nadeem, M., Bethke, A., Reddy, S. 2021. Stereoset: Measuring stereotypical bias in pretrained language models. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pp. 5356–5371. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.416.

  73. Nascimento, S.N., and D.G.D. Martins. 2022. Smart Contracts: Security Issues and Further Development in Brazil. International Journal of Law in Changing World 1 (2): 26–45. https://doi.org/10.54934/ijlcw.v1i2.22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Norman, D. 2018. People-Centered (Not Tech-Driven) Design. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/People-Centered-Not-Tech-Driven-Design-2118618. Accessed 28 Jan 2023.

  75. Nourse, V., and G. Shaffer. 2009. Varieties of New Legal Realism: Can a New World Prompt a New Legal Theory. Cornell Law Review 95 (1): 61–138.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Pound, R. 1931. The Call for a Realist Jurisprudence. Harvard Law Review 44 (5): 697–711. https://doi.org/10.2307/1331791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Pound, R. 2008. Law and morals. Montana: Kessinger Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Priel, D. 2008. Were the Legal Realists Legal Positivists? Law and Philosophy 27: 309–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Purcell, E.A. 1969. American Jurisprudence between the Wars: Legal Realism and the Crisis of Democratic Theory. The American Historical Review 75 (2): 424–446. https://doi.org/10.2307/1849692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Resnik, J. 1988. On the Bias: Feminist Reconsiderations of the Aspirations for Our Judges. California Law Review 6 (61): 1877–1879.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Schlegel, J.H. 1995. American legal realism and empirical social science. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Schoenholtz, A.I., J. Ramji-Nogales, and Philip G. Schrag. 2007. Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication. Stanford Law Review 60 (2): 295–412.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Segate, V.R. 2021. Cognitive Bias, Privacy Rights, and Digital Evidence in International Criminal Proceedings: Demystifying the Double-Edged AI Revolution. International Criminal Law Review 21 (2): 242–279. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718123-bja10048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Stevens, R. 1987. Law school: Legal education in America from the 1850’s to the 1980s. North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Stokes, M. 1994. Formalism, Realism, and the Concept of Law. Law and Philosophy 13: 115–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Ross, A. 2008. Direito e Justiça. São Paulo: Edipro.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Susskind, R.E. 1998. The future of law: Facing the challenges of information technology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Taddeo, M., and L. Floridi. 2018. How AI can be a Force for Good. Science 361 (6404): 751–752. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat5991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Takacs, N. 2008 The Ecstasy of Hyperrealism. In 14th International Symposium on Electronic Arts–ISEA2008, pp. 436–437.

  90. Twining, W. 2015. Karl Llewellyn and the realist movement. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Unger, R.M. 1986. The critical legal studies movement. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Umbach, R.K., DJh. Garlet, and L. Zamberlan. 2015. O Realismo Moderno e a Peculiaridade da Descrição em Gobseck, de Honoré de Balzac. Revista Língua & Literatura 17 (28): 195–204.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Warren, E.H. 2005. Spartan education. New Jersey: The Lawbook Exchange.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Yntema, H.E. 1931. The Rational Basis of Legal Science. Columbia Law Review 31 (6): 925–955. https://doi.org/10.2307/1114509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CEO, Brazilian Center for Mediation and Arbitration – CBMA, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

    Daniel Brantes Ferreira

  2. Department of Business Law, Deputy Director for the International Cooperation, South Ural State University (National Research University), Chelyabinsk, Russia

    Elizaveta A. Gromova

Authors
  1. Daniel Brantes Ferreira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elizaveta A. Gromova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Brantes Ferreira.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ferreira, D.B., Gromova, E.A. Hyperrealistic Jurisprudence: The Digital Age and the (Un)Certainty of Judge Analytics. Int J Semiot Law 36, 2261–2281 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-023-10015-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-023-10015-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation