#PAWNYCDAY2

1. Predictive
Analytics in
the Law
Prof Sandeep Gopalan
Deakin UniversityCRICOS Provider Code: 00113B

2. Legal Services: Stuck in the Past
Deakin UniversityCRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
“The legal industry is one of the few remaining outposts of the
corporate world whose operations are dictated mainly by human
experience. Basic questions that anyone would want to know before
committing to a million-dollar case—How likely is it that I’ll win? How
good are my lawyers? Should I settle?—can’t be answered with
certainty.” (Farhad Manjoo, Will Robots Steal Your Job?: Software Could Kill Lawyers, SLATE (Sept. 29, 2011, 2:42
AM), http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/robot_invasion/2011/09/will_robots_steal_your_job_5.html)
From online dating to credit cards to insurance, other
sectors have embraced big data. Law has been remarkably
slow – despite its overwhelming dependence on
information that is amenable to analysis.
Lawyers are backward-looking; legal ed teaches us to accept
established practices and resist change

3. Justice Gap
Deakin UniversityCRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
Widely acknowledged access to justice crisis. Legal Services
Corporation reports:
“86% of the civil legal problems reported by low-income
Americans received inadequate or no legal help.
71% of low-income households experienced at least one civil
legal problem in the last year, including problems with health
care, housing conditions, disability access, veterans’ benefits, and
domestic violence.
In 2017, low-income Americans will approach LSC-funded legal
aid organizations for support with an estimated 1.7 million
problems.”
50% of these problems will receive only limited or no legal help.

4. Justice Gap
Deakin UniversityCRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
“State studies … show a higher percentage (80%) of the civil legal
needs of the eligible population are not being met. In 2015 more
than 1.8 million litigants were not represented by counsel in civil
proceedings in New York’s state courts.
In New York City: 91% of petitioners and 92% of respondents do
not have lawyers in child support matters in family court. 99% of
tenants are unrepresented in eviction proceedings.
In New York State: 87% of petitioners and 86% of respondents do
not have lawyers in child support matters in family court.
91% of tenants are unrepresented in eviction proceedings”
Legal empowerment needed to resolve problems is absent.

5. Justice Gap is missed opportunity: $437 billion
market might be under-valued
Deakin UniversityCRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
LSC: “70% low-income Americans with recent personal experience of a
civil legal problem say a problem has significantly affected their lives”

6. Barriers to Access: Why do people shy away
from lawyers?
Deakin UniversityCRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
Studies indicate many barriers including:
Financial (legal fees);
Fear, embarrassment and stress;
Lack of knowledge about the legal system and available
support;
Geographic – rural and remote people may not have
lawyers.
Regulatory – Non-lawyers can offer legal information,
but not legal advice.

7. Analytics as a Panacea?
Deakin UniversityCRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
Technology has the potential to increase transparency about the
legal system; Educate people about their rights
Equalize position by providing tools to people who cannot engage
an attorney
Lawyers draw on their training to make judgements about legal
problems: should you sue? Which court? Is it better to settle?
These judgments are typically limited to their experience.
Analytics – superior because you can process larger amount of
information in a systematic manner, faster, and cheaper to predict
outcome
Scale – collective knowledge and skill of all the lawyers even in
large firms is not used to the benefit of clients

8. Can tech replace lawyers?
Deakin UniversityCRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
Lawyering is not just about data analysis.
Effective lawyering is about interpreting data;
Creating emotional connections with clients,
communicating value of advice, translating it into
value.
This cannot be done by machines – at least not yet.
Routine legal tasks will be automated – standard
contracts, wills, discovery etc
But lawyers working with tech can expand market

9. Lawyering: New v Old
Deakin UniversityCRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
Traditional lawyering started from rules and their
application to the facts.
Mastery of rules required before application to facts
to predict which rule would apply to the facts and
what would be the outcome from such application.
The lawyer would apply analogies, extensions,
judgement etc to determine the probable outcome.
The lawyer’s experience supplemented his technical
legal knowledge.
Experience – courts, judges, opposing counsel,
litigants.

10. New Lawyering
Deakin UniversityCRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
Data as law: patterns from data analysis as starting
point.
Outcomes might be determined other than by rules
alone.
Judicial behaviour might be more revealing than
statutory analysis.
Speed of disposals, management style, awards,
opposing side’s strengths etc become transparent.
Opens up a more commercial way to look at legal
problems; serve more clients by automating
routine tasks

11. New Lawyering
Deakin UniversityCRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
Ruger TW, Kim PT, Martin AD, Quinn KM, (2004) The Supreme Court forecasting project:
legal and political science approaches to predicting Supreme Court decision making, 104
Columbia Law Review 1150–1209:
“For every argued case during the 2002 Term, we obtained predictions
of the outcome prior to oral argument using two methods—one a
statistical model that relies on general case characteristics, and the
other a set of independent predictions by legal specialists. The basic
result is that the statistical model did better than the legal experts in
forecasting the outcomes of the Term’s cases: The model predicted 75 %
of the Court’s affirm/reverse results correctly, while the experts
collectively got 59.1 % right. These results are notable, given that the
statistical model disregards information about the specific law or facts
of the cases. The model’s relative success was due in large part to its
ability to predict more accurately the important votes of the moderate
Justices (Kennedy and O’Connor) at the center of the current Court. The
legal experts, by contrast, did best at predicting the votes of the more
ideologically extreme Justices, but had difficulty predicting the centrist
Justices.”

12. Lex Machina
Deakin UniversityCRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
Founded in 2006 – Stanford Law School and computer science department
Focusing on intellectual-property litigation.
1. Courts & Judges Comparator, which “enables attorneys to compare up to four
federal districts and judges, to gain critical insights regarding caseloads, timing
to key milestones, case resolutions, specific findings, and damages”; 2. Law
Firms Comparator, which “enables powerful side-by-side comparison of up to
four law firms, with instant display of a broad range of case-specific data”; (3)
Early Case Assessor, which “enables lawyers to quickly assess the threat posed
by a new case”; (4) Motion Kickstarter, which “makes it easy to draft winning
motions by helping attorneys compare the arguments and motion styles that
have been successful before a specific judge”; and, (5) Patent Portfolio
Evaluator, which “gives attorneys the compete litigation history for an entire
patent portfolio in one report.”

13. Lex Machina
Deakin UniversityCRICOS Provider Code: 00113B

14. Lex Machina
Deakin UniversityCRICOS Provider Code: 00113B

15. Lex Machina
Deakin UniversityCRICOS Provider Code: 00113B

16. Lex Machina
Deakin UniversityCRICOS Provider Code: 00113B

17. Lex Machina
Deakin UniversityCRICOS Provider Code: 00113B

18. Premonition Analytics
Deakin UniversityCRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
2014 report showed that a law firm’s choice of barrister was 38%
worse than random and General Counsel's choice of Law Firms
was 18% worse than random.
The 2017 Report shows that: There was only a 3% correlation
between higher fees and better performance.
“In Civil Appeals, the barrister with the best win rate in the three
year report period went for 13 cases undefeated while another
barrister didn’t win a case in 10 appearances.
In Civil Appeals there is a barrister with 11 straight defendant
wins. Even more impressive, because...Plaintiffs win 75% of the
time in the UK courts. More than double the rate in America.
Pro se litigants are much better than might be thought. As a
group, they out-perform the professionals.”

19. Blue J Legal and Beagle
Deakin UniversityCRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
Blue J Legal “analyzes fact situations using deep learning” to provide
“authoritative answers” relating to a number of specific legal subjects such as
determining if an individual is a resident of Canada or of another country for tax
purposes.”
“Tax Foresight uses sophisticated statistical methods known as “machine
learning” to identify patterns in the volumes of case law produced by the Tax
Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court of
Canada. The machine learning algorithms themselves reflect how judges weigh
various aspects based on the underlying judgment data.”
Beagle AI: “Beagle reads your contract in seconds and highlights who the parties
are, their responsibilities, their liabilities, how to get out of the contract and
more. Your contract is displayed visually with easy-to-read graphs and charts.
The clause table lets you search keywords, tag them, edit and organize them,
and assign them to others on your team for review.”

20. Robot Lawyer LISA
Deakin UniversityCRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
“Using cutting edge technology, LISA allows you to create non-disclosure
agreements with another party, together, helping you both find a
middle ground as quickly and cost effectively as possible. Whereas a
human lawyer cannot advise or act for both sides when creating an
agreement, LISA’s machine impartiality means she can save both you
and the counter-party time and money.
LISA’s job is to make sure that you and the receiver are able to find a
commercially sensible middle ground for your NDA that is reasonable to
both sides, quickly, easily and at no cost.
Creating your non-disclosure agreement (NDA) should take you
approximately 7 minutes, after which you will have a draft document”

21. Issues
Deakin UniversityCRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
Privacy.
Identity theft, data integrity.
Confidentiality and attorney client privilege.
Exacerbating inequality? Tech haves and
have-nots.
Unauthorized practice of law; where’s line
between information and advice?
Reliability
Infancy of products; Innovation needed