Incorporating Precedents for Legal Judgement Prediction on European Court of Human Rights Cases

Overview

• This paper explores methods to integrate legal precedents (prior cases) into Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) models, inspired by the legal doctrine of stare decisis.
• The researchers train a retriever to efficiently identify relevant precedents based on the overlap of alleged articles between cases.
• They investigate two strategies to incorporate precedents: direct incorporation at inference and integration during model training.
• The experiments are conducted on LJP tasks from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) jurisdiction.

Plain English Explanation

When making decisions, legal professionals often rely on precedents, or prior cases that have set a standard for how similar situations should be handled. This paper explores ways to incorporate this concept of precedents into Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) models, which are AI systems designed to predict legal outcomes.

The researchers first train a retriever model to efficiently identify relevant precedents by looking at the overlap between the key details (alleged articles) in the current case and past cases. This allows the LJP model to access information about similar situations that have been decided before.

The paper then investigates two different approaches to actually incorporating these precedents into the LJP model:

1. Direct incorporation at inference: The LJP model uses the proximity of the current case to past precedents to directly adjust its predictions.
2. Integration during training: The LJP model is trained with a special "precedent fusion" module that learns to effectively combine information from relevant precedents.

The experiments show that integrating precedents during the training process, along with jointly training the retriever and LJP models, produces the best results, especially for cases that have fewer clear-cut legal details. This suggests that learning to effectively leverage past legal rulings can significantly improve the performance of AI systems for predicting legal outcomes.

Technical Explanation

The paper proposes methods to incorporate legal precedents, or prior cases, into Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) models. The researchers train a retriever model to efficiently identify relevant precedents based on the overlap of alleged articles between cases. They then investigate two strategies to integrate these precedents:

1. Direct incorporation at inference: The LJP model uses a label interpolation technique based on the proximity of the current case to past precedents to directly adjust its predictions.
2. Integration during training: The LJP model is trained with a "precedent fusion" module that employs a stacked cross-attention mechanism to effectively combine information from relevant precedents.

The researchers also explore joint training of the retriever and LJP models to address potential divergence between their latent spaces. The experiments are conducted on LJP tasks from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) jurisdiction.

The results show that integrating precedents during the training process, coupled with joint training of the retriever and LJP models, outperforms models without precedents or with precedents incorporated only at inference. This benefit is particularly pronounced for cases with sparser legal details.

Critical Analysis

The paper presents a novel approach to leveraging legal precedents in LJP models, which is an important step towards increasing the explainability and alignment of these systems with human legal reasoning. However, the research also has some limitations:

• The experiments are limited to the ECHR jurisdiction, and the generalizability of the findings to other legal domains is not explored.
• The paper does not delve into the interpretability of the precedent integration mechanisms, making it difficult to understand how the models are actually using the precedent information.
• The paper does not address potential biases or inconsistencies that may be present in the precedent data, which could be propagated to the LJP models.

Future research could investigate the performance of these precedent integration methods on a wider range of legal tasks, explore ways to improve the interpretability of the precedent fusion process, and examine strategies to mitigate the impact of biases in the precedent data.

Conclusion

This paper presents an innovative approach to incorporating legal precedents into LJP models, inspired by the legal doctrine of stare decisis. The experiments demonstrate that learning to effectively leverage past legal rulings can significantly improve the performance of AI systems for predicting legal outcomes, particularly for cases with sparse legal details. This research represents an important step towards aligning LJP models with human legal reasoning and decision-making processes.