Representing clients from courtroom to mediation settings : switching hats between adversarial advocacy and dispute resolution advocacy

In the vast majority of cases legal representation in mediation can provide many advantages for clients. However, in some, progress can be thwarted when lawyers do not understand the goals of the mediation process and their dispute resolution advocacy role. This article will explore some of the similarities and differences between the knowledge and skills that lawyers can draw upon when representing clients in adversarial court hearings as compared with non-adversarial settings, such as in mediations. One key distinction is the different approaches that legal representatives can use to effectively act in the best interests of clients. This article will highlight how an appreciation of such distinctions can assist lawyers to “switch” hats between their adversarial and non-adversarial roles. In particular, an understanding that the duty to promote the best interests of clients in mediation is consistent with a collaborative and problem-solving approach can greatly assist in the resolution process.

Developing Co-operating Legal Knowledge Based Systems

In attempting to build intelligent litigation support tools, we have moved beyond first generation, production rule legal expert systems. Our work supplements rule-based reasoning with case based reasoning and intelligent information retrieval. This research, specifies an approach to the case based retrieval problem which relies heavily on an extended object-oriented / rule-based system architecture that is supplemented with causal background information. Machine learning techniques and a distributed agent architecture are used to help simulate the reasoning process of lawyers. In this paper, we outline our implementation of the hybrid IKBALS II Rule Based Reasoning / Case Based Reasoning system. It makes extensive use of an automated case representation editor and background information.

Don't think but look : a Gestalt interactionist approach to legal thinking

We propose here a new approach to legal thinking that is based on principles of Gestalt perception. Using a Gestalt view of perception, which sees perception as the process of building a conceptual representation of the given stimulus, we articulate legal thinking as the process of building a representation for the given facts of a case. We propose a model in which top-down and bottom-up processes interact together to build arguments (or representations) in legal thinking. We discuss some implications of our approach, especially with respect to modeling precedential reasoning and creativity in legal thinking.

A methodology for extracting legal norms from regulatory documents

We present a methodology to extract legal norms from regulatory documents for their formalisation and later compliance checking. The need for the methodology is motivated from the shortcomings of existing approaches where the rule type and process aspects relevant to the rules are largely overlook. The methodology incorporates the well–known IF. . . THEN structure extended with the process aspect and rule type, and guides how to properly extract the conditions and logical structure of the legal rules for reasoning and modelling of obligations for compliance checking.