Advertisement

Artificial Intelligence and Law

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 311–320 | Cite as

Emerging AI & Law approaches to automating analysis and retrieval of electronically stored information in discovery proceedings

  • Kevin D. AshleyEmail author
  • Will Bridewell
Article

Abstract

This article provides an overview of, and thematic justification for, the special issue of the journal of Artificial Intelligence and Law entitled “E-Discovery”. In attempting to define a characteristic “AI & Law” approach to e-discovery, and since a central theme of AI & Law involves computationally modeling legal knowledge, reasoning and decision making, we focus on the theme of representing and reasoning with litigators’ theories or hypotheses about document relevance through a variety of techniques including machine learning. We also identify two emerging techniques for enabling users’ document queries to better express the theories of relevance and connect them to documents: social network analysis and a hypothesis ontology.

Keywords

E-discovery Litigators’ relevance hypotheses User modeling Machine learning Social networks Legal ontologies 

References

  1. Agrawal R, Rajagopalan S, Srikant R, Xu Y (2003) Mining newsgroups using networks arising from social behavior. In: Proceedings of the twelfth international conference on world wide web, ACM Press, Budapest, Hungary, pp 529–535Google Scholar
  2. Ashley K (2007) Can AI & Law contribute to managing electronically stored information in discovery proceedings? Some points of tangency; position paper; ICAIL 2007 workshop on supporting search and sensemaking for electronically stored information in discovery proceedings (DESI). Stanford. http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/~oard/desi-ws/
  3. Ashley K, Bridewell W (2007) III-CXT-Medium: tracing information flow to improve legal e-discovery. NSF Proposal No. 0803049. DeclinedGoogle Scholar
  4. Ashley K, Brüninghaus S (2009) Automatically classifying case texts and predicting outcomes. Artif Intell Law 17(2):125–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Attfield S, Blandford A (2010) Discovery-led refinement in e-discovery investigations: sensemaking, cognitive ergonomics and system design. Artificial intelligence and law special issue on e-discovery (this issue)Google Scholar
  6. Baron JR, Thompson P (2007) The search problem posed by large heterogeneous data sets in litigation: possible future approaches to research. In: Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM Press, Stanford, CA, pp 141–147Google Scholar
  7. Bauer R, Jade T, Hedin B, Hogan C (2008) Automated legal sensemaking: the centrality of relevance and intentionality. In: Proceedings 2nd intl. workshop on supporting search & sensemaking for electronically stored information in discovery, London, June. http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/9131/1/9131.pdf
  8. Breuker J, Valente A, Winkels R (2004) Legal ontologies in knowledge engineering and information management. Artificial intelligence and law, Vol 12(4). Springer, pp 241–277Google Scholar
  9. Buchanan B, Headrick T (1970) Some speculation about artificial intelligence and legal reasoning. Stanford Law Rev 23:40–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Conrad J (2010) E-Discovery revisited: the need for artificial intelligence beyond information retrieval. Artificial intelligence and law special issue on e-discovery (this issue)Google Scholar
  11. Curran J, Clark S (2003) Language independent NER using a maximum entropy tagger. In: Proceedings of the seventh conference on natural language learning (CoNLL), pp 164–167Google Scholar
  12. Daniels J, Rissland E (1997) Finding legally relevant passages in case opinions. In: Proceedings of the sixth international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM Press, Melbourne, Australia, pp 39–46Google Scholar
  13. Eichmann D, Chin S-C (2007) Concepts, semantics, and syntax in E-Discovery. In: ICAIL 2007 workshop on supporting search and sensemaking for electronically stored information in discovery proceedings (DESI Workshop) http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/~oard/desi-ws/
  14. Gonçalves T, Quaresma P (2005) Is linguistic information relevant for the text legal classification problem? In: Proceedings of the tenth international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM Press, Bologna, Italy, pp 168–176Google Scholar
  15. Grover C, Hachey B, Hughson I, Korycinski C (2003) Automatic summarisation of legal documents. In: Proceedings of ninth international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM Press, Edinburgh, Scotland, pp 243–251Google Scholar
  16. Hachey B, Grover C (2006) Extractive summarization of legal texts. Artif Intell Law 14:305–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Henseler H (2010) Network-based filtering for large email collections in e-discovery. In: Artificial intelligence and law special issue on e-discovery (this issue)Google Scholar
  18. Hogan C, Bauer R, Brassil D (2009) Human-aided computer cognition for e-discovery. In: Proceedings of 12th international conference on artificial intelligence and law (ICAIL-09), Barcelona, pp 194–201Google Scholar
  19. Hogan C, Bauer R, Brassil D (2010) Automation of legal sensemaking in e-discovery. In: Artificial intelligence and law special issue on e-discovery (this issue)Google Scholar
  20. Jackson P, Al-Kofahi K, Tyrrell A, Vachher A (2003) Information extraction from case law and retrieval of prior cases. Artif Intell 150:239–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kossinets G, Watts D (2006) Empirical analysis of an evolving social network. Science 311:88–90CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. McCarty LT (2007) Deep semantic interpretations of legal texts. In: Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM Press, Stanford, CA, pp 217–224Google Scholar
  23. Mustafaraj E, Hoof M, Freisleben B (2007) Knowledge extraction and summarization for an application of textual case-based interpretation. In: Weber RO, Richter MM (eds) Proceedings of the 6th ICCBR conference, ICCBR 2007, LNAI 4626, pp 517–531Google Scholar
  24. Oard D, Baron J, Hedin B, Lewis D, Tomlinson S (2010) Evaluation of information retrieval for e-discovery. Artificial intelligence and law special issue on e-discovery (this issue)Google Scholar
  25. Privault C, O’Neill J, Ciriza V, Renders J-M (2010) A new tangible user interface for machine learning document review. In: Artificial intelligence and law special issue on e-discovery (this issue)Google Scholar
  26. Racunas SA, Shah NH, Albert I, Fedoroff NV (2004) HyBrow: a prototype system for computer-aided hypothesis evaluation. Bioinformatics 20:i257–i264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schank R (1986) Explanation patterns: understanding mechanically and creatively. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  28. Schwartz MF, Wood DCM (1993) Discovering shared interests using graph analysis. Commun ACM 36:78–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Thagard P (1999) How scientists explain disease. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  30. Thompson P (2001) Automatic categorization of case law. In: Proceedings of the eighth international conference on artificial intelligence and law, ACM Press, St. Louis, MO, pp 70–77Google Scholar
  31. Tillers P (ed) (2007) Special issue on graphic and visual representations of evidence and inference in legal settings. In: Law, Probability, and Risk, vol 6, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  32. Uyttendaele C, Moens M, Dumortier J (1998) SALOMON: automatic abstracting of legal cases for effective access to court decisions. Artif Intell Law 6:59–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Weber R (1998) Intelligent jurisprudence research, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil, unpublished doctoral dissertationGoogle Scholar
  34. Wilson T (2008) Fine-grained subjectivity and sentiment analysis: recognizing the intensity, polarity, and attitudes of private states. Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh Intelligent Systems Program. http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/twilson/dissertation.html
  35. Withers K (2006) Electronically stored information: The December 2006 amendments to the federal rules of civil procedure. Northwestern Journal of Technology & Intellectual Property, 4, (Property 171) at http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/njtip/v4/n2/3

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of LawUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Cognitive Systems Laboratory, Center for the Study of Language and InformationStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations