“Law is reason free from passion.” – Aristotle
As a precedent based system, law lends itself nicely to predictive analytics. In predictive analytics, historical data is used to build a mathematical model. This model can then be used to predict what will happen next.
As case law becomes easier to access, many companies are developing predictive analytic tools based on case law. Predictive analytics can be focused on different areas of law. For example, predicting the outcomes of cases in employment, tax, insurance, or family law. Another area predictive analytics can be focused on are on the actors. For example, predicting how judges decide cases, how successful lawyers tend to be in court, and the success of repeat litigants.
Recently, France has banned a type of predictive analytics. Article 33 of the Justice Reform Act bans individuals or companies from publicly revealing the patterns of judges’ decisions. Anyone breaking this rule can face a penalty of five years in prison.
Theoretically, it should not matter who hears a case. The law is to be applied the same way. But by banning this type of predictive analytics, France is recognizing that sometimes the judge’s identity makes all the difference. How do we reconcile identity with a precedent based system?
(Originally posted on slaw.ca. Views are my own and do not represent the views of any organization.)