The Application of Artificial Intelligence Technology in the US Civil Court System

Legal Concept ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 63-71
Author(s):  
Ekaterina Kupchina ◽  

Introduction: in the era of the active introduction of digital technologies, more and more processes are being automated and smart machines are taking over the work of people. Even at the end of the 20th century, automatic spell-checking and search engines were perceived by many as “highly intelligent” information technologies. Currently, such processes have become completely trivial for most people and have given way to more advanced technologies. The intelligent face recognition systems installed in public places and airports allow you to verify a person’s identity, as well as assist in the capture of criminals. The smart assistants in mobile devices, for example, Google Maps, provide additional information about the destination (working hours, the name of the organization). However, there is more and more debate about the introduction of artificial intelligence technologies in the judicial process. Many experts in the field of information and communication technologies, as well as practicing lawyers, argue that thanks to the accumulated experience and judicial practice, it is possible to predict and make court decisions based on certain algorithms for certain categories of cases. This practice already exists in the system of alternative settlement of civil disputes. The first such decision was made by a robot mediator back in 2019 in the High Court of England and Wales. To resolve the dispute, the Smartsettle ONE system developed by the Canadian company iCan Systems was used. The use of artificial intelligence technology allowed resolving the dispute between the parties and coming to an agreement in less than an hour. The legislator approaches the issues of the introduction of artificial intelligence technology in the system of state courts more carefully. However, court cases do not always require a comprehensive individual approach to decision-making and many cases can be processed automatically, at least, partially. In this regard, it seems appropriate to explore in the paper the main opportunities and risks of using artificial intelligence through the example of the civil justice system of the United States of America. The purpose of the study is achieved by answering several questions: how can artificial intelligence be useful for courts? What mechanisms of the justice system need to be improved for the effective operation of artificial intelligence systems? What forms of artificial intelligence exist in the US civil court system? How can courts and judges work with artificial intelligence under the standards of a fair procedure for considering civil disputes? The methodology is based on a theoretical approach to the study of the most commonly used artificial intelligence technologies in the US civil justice system, as well as a number of national laws and other regulations. Based on the analysis of the theoretical data obtained, in the paper, the author analyzes the current trends and mechanisms for resolving civil disputes using artificial intelligence systems and also highlights some related problems. The results of the research can be used in determining the key goals and objectives of a procedural nature, improving the functioning of judicial and non-judicial organizations, law enforcement, research activities, as well as in teaching activities, in particular, during lectures and seminars on courses of private international law and civil procedure. Conclusions: increasing the level of awareness of participants in civil law disputes about current trends and tools for the administration of justice contributes to the development of the institution of civil proceedings, as well as contributes to increasing transparency and increasing the degree of trust of citizens in the judicial system as a whole.

Amicus Curiae ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 165-200
Author(s):  
Michael Reynolds

This article explores an early example of subordinate judicial practice in England and Wales in which we may see some issues that later appear in the relationship between informal justice initiatives (especially alternative dispute resolution) and the civil justice system. Broadly speaking, the paper looks first at the symptoms of systemic failure in the pre-1873 system which led to the creation of the Official Referee’s office. It then considers the relevant recommendations of the Judicature Commissioners and the reasoning behind such recommendation, looking at both the macro- and the micro-levels, before exploring the referees’ diverse jurisdiction which provided a creative foundation for the evolution of interlocutory innovation. The article argues that structural realignment of the court system by the Judicature Commissioners was not sufficient in itself to eradicate all its encumbrances, but it indirectly empowered the referees to eventually bring about revolutionary procedural changes.


1979 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 295-346 ◽  
Author(s):  
David M. Engel ◽  
Eric H. Steele

It is not an exaggeration to say that we live in an era preoccupied with the problems and challenges of obtaining justice in civil cases. Concerns expressed about the civil justice system range from warnings that civil court dockets are clogged by disputants too litigious for their own good to complaints that the legal system is used too rarely in civil cases.The authors approach their analysis with a sense that this subject area is in need of more and better theory. It is an unfortunate fact that discussions of civil justice—and suggestions for reform—have been marked by contradiction and confusion and have been engrossed with small matters that tend to obscure from view the system as a whole.The first part of this essay focuses on what the civil justice system is and does. It presents a five-stage model of civil case processing and examines relationships between this model and the criminal justice system. The second part of the essay considers this model in a broader context. Here the authors examine two paradigms of civil case processing and their implications for the implementation of legal norms and the pursuit of justice in society.


Author(s):  
John Sorabji

Compliance with case management orders has been a hidden problem undermining the effective operation of the Civil Procedure Rules. The focus of academic critique has, however, been on the adverse consequences to their effective operation of non-compliance with such orders. This chapter considers this unexamined problem of case management: the compliance problem. It first examines the nature of the compliance problem, placing it within the context of the wider and substantially explored problem of non-compliance; the latter having formed a major limb of Zuckerman’s critique of English civil procedure. It then explores how current and potential future reforms to the English civil justice system arising from HMCTS reform programme, the Civil Courts Structure review, digitization and the potential use of artificial intelligence (AI) could overcome this unexplored problem.


2000 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-158 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keith Rix

In the second of my previous two articles on the role of the expert witness, I anticipated the implementation of Lord Woolf's proposed reforms to the civil justice system in England and Wales (Rix, 1999). These changes came into effect on 26 April 1999 and they represent the most radical changes to the civil justice system for a hundred years. In the previous article, it was not possible to do more than list a few of the key points relevant to experts. The purpose of this article is to describe the changes in detail and show how they will, or can be expected to, affect the role of the expert.


Legal Studies ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-131 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Higgins

The paper examines the controversial issue of referral fees for personal injury claims. It looks at the function of referral fees in the civil justice system, their relationship to the guarantees of access to court and the right to seek legal assistance in ECHR Art 6, and the debate about promoting access to justice or a litigious society. It examines the experience of the referral fees market in England and Wales, where the costs of referrals have risen dramatically and there is concern that referrers are auctioning their customers to the highest bidder rather than helping them find competent lawyers. Sir Rupert Jackson recommended banning referral fees in his report on the costs of civil litigation, and the Government has announced it will implement this recommendation. The paper considers the potential effects of a ban on competition in the legal services market and its compatibility with UK and EU competition law. The paper argues that a combination of better regulation of the industry and proper regulation of costs rules is a better and more proportionate way of controlling legal costs and the quality of legal services than an outright ban. While referral fees have not delivered all the benefits one would expect from a for-profit independent referrals service, they can help people obtain information about their legal rights, and competent lawyers to enforce them. This service is particularly valuable given that the state has substantially cut public funding of the civil justice system in recent years.


1988 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 137 ◽  
Author(s):  
William M. O'Barr ◽  
John M. Conley

2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 97
Author(s):  
Steven E. Pegalis

Objective: The aim of this paper is to evaluate a hypothesis premised on the idea that if medical leaders in the United States support an unfettered access for patients injured by medical error to the American civil justice system, that approach would improve patient safety and be cost effective. Method: An analysis of the relevant legal and medical literature. Results: Medical liability in the American civil justice system derived from traditional tort law is based on accountability. Reforms applied to medical liability cases urged by healthcare providers limit and in some cases eliminate legal rights of patients injured by healthcare error which rights exist for all others in non-medical cases. Yet medical liability cases have promoted a culture of safety. Information learned from medical liability cases has been used to make care safer with a reduced incidence of adverse outcomes and lower costs. A just culture of safety can limit provider emotional stress. Using the external pressures to reduce the incidence of law suits and promoting ethical mandates to be safer and disclose the truth can promote provider satisfaction. Conclusions: An alliance between legal and medical professionals on the common ground of respect for the due process legal rights of patients in the American system of justice and the need for accountability can make care safer and can be cost effective.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document