ARGUMENTATION

Abstract

Apopular viewofwhat Artificial Intelligence can do for lawyers is that it can do no more than deduce the consequences from a precisely stated set of facts and legal rules. This immediately makes many lawyers skeptical about the usefulness of such systems: this mechanical approach seems to leave out most of what is important in legal reasoning. A case does not appear as a set of facts, but rather as a story told by a client. For example, a man may come to his lawyer saying that he had developed an innovative product while working for Company A. Now Company B has made him an offer of a job, to develop a similar product for them. Can he do this? The lawyer firstly must interpret this story, in the context, so that it can be made to fit the framework of applicable law. Several interpretations may be possible. In our example it could be seen as being governed by his contract of employment, or as an issue in Trade Secrets law. Next the legal issues must be identified and the pros and cons of the various interpretations considered with respect to them. Does his contract include a nondisclosure agreement? If so, what are its terms? Was he the sole developer of the product? Did Company A support its development? Does the product use commonly known techniques? Did Company A take measures to protect the secret? Some of these will favor the client, some the Company. Each interpretation will require further facts to be obtained. For example, do the facts support a claim that the employee was the sole developer of the product? Was development work carried out in his spare time? What is the precise nature of the agreements entered into? Once an interpretation has been selected, the argument must be organized into the form considered most likely to persuade, both to advocate the client’s position and to rebut anticipated objections. Some precedents may point to one result and others to another. In that case, further arguments may be produced to suggest following the favorable precedent and ignoring the unfavorable one. Or the rhetorical presentation of the facts may prompt one interpretation rather than the other. Surely all this requires the skill, experience and judgment of a human being? Granted that this is true, much effort has been made to design computer programs that will help people in these tasks, and it is the purpose of this chapter to describe the progress that has been made in modeling and supporting this kind of sophisticated legal reasoning.