Jurimetrics, as is generally known, may be defined as the application of quantitative methods to Law and, furthermore, the adoption of artificial intelligence and data analysis with the purpose of investigating the operation of a legal order. This approach is only possible due to the facilitation of access to data deemed as structured, i.e., dependent on the technological inclusion of the courts, for instance.
It is, therefore, the use of the field of knowledge of statistics in an interdisciplinary manner, in order to promote the analysis and parameterization of a large amount of data (big data) – in this case, legal data – with the help of algorithms that will “read” this data through the ordering of semantic filters. With these filters, it is possible to predict, for example, success rates in certain types of conflicts based on previous decisions on the same topic or establishing a legislative debate that will ultimately lead to the creation of laws that are consistent with the factual scenario.
One of the best known applications of Jurimetrics nowadays is the analysis of information organized in databases in order to establish a broad understanding of the legal or socioeconomic situation required, providing the so-called predictive analysis. For the president of the Brazilian Jurimetrics Association, Marcelo Guedes Nunes, jurimetrics may be able to explain the operation of the legal system, making use of sampling and, for example, investigating large populations and identifying relations of association and causality that elucidate the reasons for the successes and failures of our current practices.
A system with a large volume of cases in progress, the so-called hyper-judicialization, invariably results in slowness and lack of effective resolution for the conflicts that are placed under the jurisdiction of the courts. Jurimetrics, therefore, would collaborate as a technique for sizing this great mass of conflicts and enabling the framing of the legal scenario, allowing, ultimately, the definition of the applicable improvements. The effect would be “a legal order more in tune with reality, more functional, more effective, faster, more economical and, therefore, fairer”, according to Guedes.
Not to mention its applications in the jurisprudential field, which enables the identification of trends and patterns in judicial decisions by extracting large amounts of texts from judgments, orders and rulings, classifying them into analytical categories that facilitate predictive analysis. Thus, with a large collection, it is possible to predict decisions and understand factors that lead judges to take certain paths.
On the other hand, jurimetrics methods may be applied in the legal practice with great efficiency. Their use by lawyers may be applied in the evaluation of measures of evidence in proceedings, in support of argumentation, such as in a trial session of an appeal, which will be based on statistical concepts and models, which are built as of the available data and the experience of those involved, i.e. in the behavior and reiterated practice of judges.
Jurimetrics, therefore, may serve and be useful not only to the activity of lawyers, but also to the organization of the courts themselves, as it will be able to identify relevant data on the functioning of the courts, the performance of the judges, the material components of the processes, promoting not only transparency to the public, but also providing an important improvement in the efficiency of the Judiciary. It is worth noting that the tool itself can still act as a very effective accountability mechanism.
The use of technological approaches to solve well-known problems in the legal environment is not only a well-known flag of the British jurist Richard Susskind, but also the main focus of various academic discussions in recent years. While there is an understanding of the need to promote alternative means of conflict resolution – an approach which, in turn, includes the use of technologies such as Jurimetrics – in order to promote de-judicialization and to put into effect procedural principles such as the reasonable duration of the process, discussions on its suitability and correct application are not infrequently raised.
This is because, with the development of applied data science in recent years, it has also been possible to observe the emergence of consultancy – and, of course, commercial – services which, by means of broad access, collection and treatment of internal court databases, allow the capture of information and the making of predictions for their clients. Through these lawtechs, financial provisioning calculations, procedural management recommendations, automations, strategic outlining of legal theses, calculation of success rates and several other tools that truly subvert the functioning of current legal practice.
As demonstrated, the benefits of adopting quantitative methods to Law are directly related to socio-economic progress, as well as, and mainly, provoking a strong, positive impact on jurisdictional provision and the legal market as a whole. This is also an inevitable and inexorable path, typical of any innovation, whether radical or incremental.
However, it is necessary to shed more light on the subject, precisely in Portuguese territory. It is necessary to provoke a public debate and reflections with all those involved, be they legal professionals, magistrates or lawyers. What paths can be adopted to apply jurimetrics for the benefit of the community? Is the French example, which aims to prevent the publication of patterns of behaviour of judges in relation to judicial decisions, under the argument that the construction of individualised profiles is contrary to the proper functioning of justice and the protection of personal data, a fair or unjustified resistance?
The policy of open data, or the so-called open justice, is one of the main bases, according to Susskind, of digital transformation and the structuring of online courts. For the British jurist “the impact of AI on our personal lives and on our social, political and economic institutions will become widespread, transformative and irreversible. The law and the Courts will not be exempt.” Susskind further states that “lawyers, judges and policy makers must be humbled and open-minded about technologies not yet invented” in view of the virtually certain and given circumstance that our lives will be radically changed in instances we do not even understand.
And this scribe is with Susskind. We will not dare to diverge from what we consider le maître de nos destinées. Marchons, marchons.
