on Artificial Intelligence and Law
Syllabus: Updated, February 26, 2007
Class URL: http://www.lrdc.pitt.edu/Ashley/ailawsyl07.htm
Time and Place: Spring Semester, 2007: Tuesdays, 4:00 -
5:50 PM, Law Bldg G13
Professor: Kevin D. Ashley
Law Bldg, 3900
Forbes Ave., Room 525, 648-1495
Learning Research and Development Center, 3939 O'Hara St., Room 519, 624-7496
will be distributed electronically. Class handouts and other materials will be
Evaluation and Requirements:
Attendance will be
taken on a regular basis throughout the semester. The two main requirements are
(1) a seminar paper and short presentation and (2) classroom participation.
and short presentations:
Students will be asked to write a fifteen-to-twenty page paper on a topic of
their choice approved by the instructor. A non-exhaustive listing of possible
paper topics may be found at sampletopics07.htm.
Students should contact the instructor early in the term to discuss appropriate
paper topics. This is especially true for those who intend the paper to satisfy
their law school writing requirement. Whatever paper topic a student chooses, a
student should plan to develop an extended specific example to illustrate
his/her point. Graduate students are invited to propose paper topics connecting
the seminar material to their own research interests in AI or computer science.
The first draft of
each paper will be submitted to the instructor and distributed for peer-review
by a small set of other students in the class. The SWoRD program will be used
to facilitate the peer-review process. For each paper to review, the peer
reviewer will write a brief commentary of the paper evaluating it in terms of a
small set of criteria to be posted. The commentaries will be sent to the
original author and to the instructor. After receipt of the commentaries,
students will prepare a final draft of the paper and submit it to the
Each author will
be asked to make a short oral presentation of his or her paper later in the
Classroom Participation: Students will also be evaluated on the
basis of class participation. In order to stimulate classroom discussion and
foster understanding of the readings, students will be asked to prepare and
submit short (1 page) critiques of assigned readings. Typically, the critique
should include four parts: (1) a brief statement of what the paper is about,
short descriptions of (2) the strengths of the approach, (3) its weaknesses,
and (4) the relevance of the paper to the student’s seminar topic, research
project, or something else of interest to the student. These should be
submitted electronically to the instructor by noon of a class day.
The instructor will assign individual
students responsibility for being prepared to lead discussions of particular
readings at the next class.
Grades will be
based on the final draft of a student’s course paper, oral presentation,
submission of a substantial first draft for peer review, preparation of
peer review commentaries, and classroom participation.
Schedule of Topics and Readings:
[Note: On any given week, the
instructor will assign which students should read which papers for the
following week’s class.]
Introduction to AI & Law
Course introduction and discussion of possible paper
II. Overview of
AI and Law Research
Date: January 16
& Law overview PowerPoint presentation.
- Buchanan & Headrick. (1970)
"Some Speculation about Artificial Intelligence and Legal
Reasoning". 23 Stanford L. R. 40-62.
- Edwina L. Rissland. (1990) "Artificial Intelligence
and Law: Stepping Stones to a Model of Legal Reasoning". 99 Yale
III. What is
Legal Reasoning? What is AI?
Date: January 23
AI & Law
- Edward H. Levi. (1949) An
Introduction to Legal Reasoning. pp. 1-27. University of Chicago
- K. D. Ashley and S. Brüninghaus
(2006) “Computer Models for Legal Prediction.” Jurimetrics
Journal Vol. 46, pp. 309-352.
Background Readings on legal
reasoning and AI [optional]:
- K. N. Llewellyn. The Bramble
Bush: On Our Law and Its Study. pp. 19-76. Oceana Publications, Dobbs Ferry, NY,
1960 edition, 1930. [At Reserve Desk.]
- Edwina L. Rissland. "Artificial Intelligence:
Knowledge Representation", "Artificial Intelligence: Search,
Control and Learning". Chapter 4 and 5 of Cognitive Science, an
Introduction. 2d Edition. pp. 139-214. Bradford
Books / MIT Press. 1985. Cambridge,
MA. [At Reserve Desk.]
Production Rule Systems and Logical Representations of Statutes
Date: January 30
- D. A. Waterman and M. Peterson. Models
of Legal Decisionmaking. Technical Report R-2717-1CJ. pp. v-xii, 1-55.
Rand Corporation. Santa Monica,
- M. J. Sergot, F. Sadri, R. A. Kowalski, F. Kriwaczek, P.
Hammond, and H. T. Cory. "The British Nationality Act as a Logic
Program". Communications of the ACM, 29(5):370--386, May 1986
with Logical Representations of Statutes
Date: February 6
- Layman E. Allen and C. R. Engholm.
"Normalized Legal Drafting and the Query Method". 29 Journal
of Legal Education 380-412. 1978.
- Layman E. Allen and Charles S. Saxon. "Some Problems
in Designing Expert Systems to Aid Legal Reasoning". In Proceedings
of First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pp.
94-103. Northeastern University, Boston,
- Donald Berman and Carole Hafner. "Obstacles to the
Development of Logic-Based Models of Legal Reasoning" in Computer
Power and Legal Language. Walter, C. (ed.) pp. 183-214. Greenwood Press.
Date: February 13
- Anne. vdL. Gardner. An Artificial Intelligence
Approach to Legal Reasoning. pp. 1-16, 33-66, 84-188. MIT Press, Cambridge, 1987.
Representing Legal Concepts
Date: February 27
- L. Thorne McCarty (1995) "An
Implementation of Eisner v. Macomber" In Proceedings, 5th
Int’l Conf. on Artificial Intelligence and Law. pp. 276-286.
- Kevin D. Ashley (1991)
“Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals in Hypo”. In International Journal of Man‑Machine
Studies, Vol. 34, pp. 753‑796.
[Note: No class on March 6, Spring Recess]
with Cases and Hypotheticals; Structured Legal Analogies
Date: March 13
- Vincent Aleven (2003) “Using
Background Knowledge in Case-Based Legal Reasoning: A Computational Model
and an Intelligent Learning Environment”. 150 Artificial Intelligence 183-238.
- L. Karl Branting, "Building
Explanations from Rules and Structured Cases". International
Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34(6):797--837, 1991.
Cases, Statutes, Rules, and Values
Date: March 20
- Edwina L.
Rissland and David B. Skalak "CABARET: Statutory Interpretation in a
Hybrid Architecture" in International Journal of Man-Machine
Studies, 34(6):839--887, 1991.
- Donald H.
Berman and C. Hafner (1993) "Representing Teleological Structure in
Case-Based Legal Reasoning: The Missing Link" in Proceedings of
the Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law.
pp. 50-59. Association for Computing Machinery. New York. June.
Bench-Capon and Giovanni Sartor (2003) “A Model of Legal Reasoning
with Cases Incorporating Theories and Values”. 150 Artificial Intelligence 97-143.
Information Retrieval from Text
Date: March 27
- David C.
Blair and M. E. Maron. "An Evaluation of Retrieval Effectiveness for
a Full-Text Document-Retrieval System". Communications of the ACM,
28(3):289-299, March 1985.
- Howard R. Turtle. 1995 "Text Retrieval in the Legal
World" in Artificial Intelligence and Law, 3: 5-54. Kluwer:
Dordrect, The Netherlands.
- Daniels, J.J. and Rissland, E.L.(1997) Finding Legally
Relevant Passages in Case Opinions. In Proceedings of the Sixth
International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ICAIL-97
pp. 39-46. Association for Computing Machinery. New York.
- Bruninghaus, S. and Ashley, K.D. (2006). “Progress
in Textual Case-Based Reasoning: Predicting the Outcome of Legal Cases
from Text,” in Proceedings,
Twenty-First National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-06)
pp. 1577-1580. Boston.
- Peter Jackson, Khalid Al-Kofahi, Alex Tyrrell, and Arun
Vacher (2003). “Information Extraction from Case Law and Retrieval
of Prior Cases.” 150 Artificial
Graphically Representing Legal Arguments
Date: April 3
Pinkwart, Kevin Ashley, Vincent Aleven and Collin Lynch. (submitted)
“Reflective Argument Mapping in LARGO.”
- Carr, C.
(2003) “Using Computer Supported Argument Visualization to Teach
Legal Argumentation.” In Visualizing Argumentation, 75-96. London, Springer.
- Reed, C.,
and Rowe, G. (2004) “Araucaria: Software for Argument Analysis,
Diagramming and Representation.” International
Journal of AI Tools 13(4):961-980.
B. 2003. “Artificial Argument Assistants for Defeasible Argumentation.”
Judges and Legal Professionals: Document Drafting, Decision Making, Sentencing
Dates: April 10
- J. Karl
Branting, J. Lester, and C. Callaway (1998) "Automating Judicial
Document Drafting: A Discourse-Based Approach" In Artificial
Intelligence and Law 6: 111-149. Kluwer: Dordrecht,
- John Zeleznikow and A. Stranieri, 1995 "The Split-Up
System: Integrating Neural Networks and Rule-Based Reasoning in the Legal
Domain" in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on
Artificial Intelligence and Law. pp. 185-194. Association for
Computing Machinery. New York.
- Uri Schild, 1995 "Intelligent Computer Systems for
Criminal Sentencing" in Proceedings of the Fifth International
Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. pp. 229-238.
Association for Computing Machinery. New York. May.
- Graham Greenleaf, A. Mowbray and P. Van Dijk 1995
"Representing and Using Legal Knowledge in Integrated Decision
Support Systems: DataLex Workstations." Artificial Intelligence and
Law. 3: 97-142. Kluwer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
- Edwina L. Rissland and M. Timur. Friedman, 1995
"Detecting Change in Legal Concepts" in Proceedings of the
Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. pp.
127-136. Association for Computing Machinery. New York. May.
- Daniel E.
Rose and R. K. Belew, "A Connectionist and Symbolic Hybrid for
Improving Legal Research". International Journal of Man-Machine
Studies, 35: 1-33, 1991.
Short Presentations of
Dates: April 17
Readings: Not applicable