Perhaps some hyperbolic language in here but the basic idea is still intact … for law+economics / empirical legal studies – the causal inference versus machine learning point is expressed in detail in this paper called “Quantitative Legal Prediction.” Mike Bommarito and I have made this point in these slides, these slides, these slides, etc. Mike and I also make this point on Day 1 of our Legal Analytics Class (which really could be called “machine learning for lawyers”).
Here is an introductory slide deck from “Legal Analytics” which is a course that Mike Bommarito and I are teaching this semester. Relevant legal applications include predictive coding in e-discovery (i.e. classification), early case assessment and overall case prediction, pricing and staff forecasting, prediction of judicial behavior, etc.
As I have written in my recent article in Emory Law Journal – we are moving into an era of data driven law practice. This course is a direct response to demands from relevant industry stakeholders. For a large number of prediction tasks … humans + machines > humans or machines working alone.
We believe this is the first ever Machine Learning Course offered to law students and it our goal to help develop the first wave of human capital trained to thrive as this this new data driven era takes hold. Richard Susskind likes to highlight this famous quote from Wayne Gretzky … “A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.”
The focus of my panel was “E-Discovery in 2015 and Beyond.” My Panel included: The Honorable Faith Hochberg, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey; Joe Looby, FTI Technology & Dawn Hall, FTI Consulting. As was true last year, I was the only Law Professor asked to speak at an event which draws more than 12,000 attendees from many of the law divisions of the Fortune 500, many of the law firms in the AmLaw100 / NLJ 250 and the large number of emerging legal technology companies which as Bill Henderson noted are not really being held back by Rule 5.4.
From the site … “A truly random game of Rock-Paper-Scissors would result in a statistical tie with each player winning, tying and losing one-third of the time … However, people are not truly random and thus can be studied and analyzed. While this computer won’t win all rounds, over time it can exploit a person’s tendencies and patterns to gain an advantage over its opponent.
Computers mimic human reasoning by building on simple rules and statistical averages. Test your strategy against the computer in this rock-paper-scissors game illustrating basic artificial intelligence. Choose from two different modes: novice, where the computer learns to play from scratch, and veteran, where the computer pits over 200,000 rounds of previous experience against you.”
Update: For his thoughts on possible implications in the market for legal services, check out Larry Ribstein’s post “Lawyer’s in Jeopardy” over at Truth on the Market. In a related vein, check out today’s WSJ Is Your Job an Endangered Species? The subtitle reads: “Technology is eating jobs—and not just obvious ones like toll takers and phone operators. Lawyers and doctors are at risk as well.”