Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Applied Intelligent Systems pp 201–254Cite as

Building Intelligent Legal Decision Support Systems: Past Practice and Future Challenges

  • Chapter

Part of the book series: Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing ((STUDFUZZ,volume 153))

Abstract

In [91] Susskind outlines the past use of Information Technology (IT), and indicates probable future uses of IT by the legal profession. He indicates that until recently, there was only limited use of IT by legal professionals. Whilst the use of word processing, office, automation, case management tools, client and case databases, electronic data/document interchange tools and fax machines is now standard, only recently have legal firms commenced using knowledge management techniques. The use of applied legal decision support systems is in its infancy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aitken C (1995) Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Aleven V and Ashley K (1997) Evaluating a Learning Environment for Case-Based Argumentation Skills, Proc 6 th Intl Conf Artificial Intelligence & Law, Melbourne, Australia, June 30–July 4, ACM Press, New York: 170 –179.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Aleven V (1997) Teaching Case-Based Argumentation through a model and examples, PhD dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, PA.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Alexy R (1989) A Theory of Legal Argumentation, Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ashley KD (1991) Modeling legal argument: Reasoning with cases and hypotheticals, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ashley KD (1992) Case-based reasoning and its implications for legal expert systems, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 1 (2): 113–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bellucci E and Zeleznikow J (1997) Family—Negotiator: an intelligent decision support system for negotiation in Australian Family Law, Proc 4 th Conf Intl Soc for Decision Support Systems, Lausanne: 359–373.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bellucci E and Zeleznikow J (1998) A comparative study of negotiation decision support systems, Proc 31st Hawaii Intl Conf System Sciences, Maui, Hawaii, IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA: 254–262.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bellucci E and Zeleznikow J (2001) Representations of Decision-Making Support in Negotiation, J Decision Systems, 10 (3–4): 449–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bench-Capon TJ.M (1997) Argument in artificial intelligence and law, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 5: 249–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bench-Capon TJM and Sergot MJ (1988) Towards a rule-based representation of open texture in law, in Walter C (ed) Computer Power and Legal Language, Quorum Books, New York, NY: 39–61.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bench-Capon TJM and Visser PRS (1997) Ontologies in Legal Information Systems: the Need for Explicit Specifications of Domain Conceptualizations, Proc 6 th Intl Conf Artificial Intelligence and Law, Melbourne, Australia, June 30–July 4, ACM Press, New York: 132–141.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Berman DH (1991) Developer’s choice in the legal domain: the Sisyphean journey with case-based reasoning or down hill with rules, Proc 3rd Intl Conf Artificial Intelligence and Law, Oxford, UK, June 25–28, ACM Press, New York: 307–309.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Berman DH and Hafner CD (1988) Obstacles to the development of logic-based models of legal reasoning, in Walter C (ed) Computer Power and Legal Reasoning, Quorum Books, New York, NY: 183–214.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Black HC (1990) Black’s Law Dictionary, West Publishing Company, St. Paul, Minnesota.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Brams SJ and Kilgour DM (2001) Fallback Bargaining, Group Decision and Negotiation, 10 (4): 287–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Brams SJ and Taylor AD (1996) Fair Division, From cake cutting to dispute resolution, Cambridge University Press, UK.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Branting LK (1991) Building explanations from rules and structured cases, Intl J Man Machine Studies, 34 (6): 797–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Branting KL (1994) A Computational Model of Ratio Decidendi, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 2: 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Branting LK (2001) Advisory Systems for Pro Se Litigants, Proc 8 th Intl Conf Artificial Intelligence and Law, St Louis, Missouri, May 21–25, ACM Press, New York: 139–146.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Breuker J Elhag A, Petkov E and Winkels R (2002) Ontologies for Legal Information Serving and Knowledge Management, Proc Jurix 2002: 15 th Annual Conf Legal Knowledge and Information Systems, London, UK, December 17–18, IOS Press, Amsterdam: 73–82.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Brkic J (1985) Legal Reasoning: Semantic and Logical Analysis, Peter Lang. New York.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Capper P and Susskind R (1988) Latent Damage Adviser — The Expert System, Butterworths, London.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Chung WWC and Pak JJF (1997) Implementing Negotiation Support Systems: Theory and Practice, Proc 13th Annual Hawaii Intl Conf Systems Science (Mini track on Negotiation Support Systems), Hawaii.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Clark E and Hoyle A (2002) On-line Dispute Resolution: Present Realities and Future Prospects, Proc 17th Bileta Conf, Amsterdam, www.bileta.ac.uk/02papers/hoyle.html

    Google Scholar 

  26. Daniels J and Rissland E (1997) Finding legally relevant passages in case opinions, Proc 6 th Intl Conf Artificial Intelligence and Law, Melbourne, Australia, June 30 — July 4, ACM Press, New York: 39–46.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Dick JP (1991) A conceptual, case-relation representation of text for intelligent retrieval, PhD Thesis, University of Toronto, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Dworkin R (1986) Law’s Empire, Duckworth, London.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Eidelman JA (1993) Software for Negotiations, Law Practice Management, 19 (7): 50–55.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Eisenberg MA (1976) Private Ordering Through Negotiation: Dispute Settlement and Rulemaking, Harvard Law Review, 89: 637–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Fayyad U, Piatetsky-Shapiro G and Smyth P (1996) The KDD process for Extracting Useful knowledge from volumes of data, Communications ACM, 39 (11): 27–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. FeuRosa PV (2000) The Electronic Judge, Proc AISB ‘00 — Symp Artificial Intelligence & Legal Reasoning, Birmingham, UK, April: 33–36.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Fisher R and Ury W (1981) Getting to YES: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In,Haughton Mifflin, Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Frawley WJ, Piatetsky-Shapiro G and Matheus CJ (1991) Knowledge discovery in databases: an overview, Knowledge discovery in databases, AAAI/MIT Press: 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Fuller L (1958) Positivism and the separation of law and morals–a reply to Professor Hart, Harvard Law Review, 71: 630–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Goldring J (1976) Australian Law and International Commercial Arbitration, Columbia J Transnational Law, 15: 216–252.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Gordon TF (1995) The Pleadings Game: An exercise in computational dialectics, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 2 (4): 239–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Gruber TR (1995) Towards principles for the Design of Ontologies used for Knowledge Sharing, Intl JHuman-Computer Studies, 43: 907–928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Greenleaf G, Mowbray A and Van Dijk P (1996) Representing and Using Legal Knowledge in Integrated Decision Support Systems: Datalex Workstations, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4: 97–142.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Hall MJJ, Hall R and Zeleznikow J (2003) A method for evaluating legal knowledge-based systems based upon the Context Criteria Contingency-guidelines framework, Proc 9th Intl Conf Artificial Intelligence and Law, Edinburgh, Scotland, June 24–28, ACM Press, New York: 274–283.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Hall MJJ, Stranieri A and Zeleznikow J (2002) A Strategy for Evaluating Web-Based Discretionary Decision Support Systems, Proc ADBIS2002 — 6 th East-European Conf Advances in Databases and Information Systems, Slovak University of Technology, Bratislava, Slovak Republic, 8–11 September: 108–120.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Hall MJ.J and Zeleznikow J (2002) The Context, Criteria, Contingency Evaluation Framework for Legal Knowledge-Based Systems, Proc Business Information Systems Conf, April 24–25, Poznan, Poland, ACM Press, New York: 219–227.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Hart HLA (1958) Positivism and the separation of law and morals, Harvard Law Review, 71: 593–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Ingleby R (1993) Family Law and Society, Butterworths, Sydney.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Ivkovic S, Yearwood J and Stranieri A (2003) Visualising association rules for feedback within the Legal System, Proc 9th Intl Conf Artificial Intelligence and Law, Edinburgh, Scotland, June 24–28, ACM Press, New York: 214–223.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Johnson P and Mead D (1991) Legislative knowledge base systems for public administration - Some practical issues, Proc 3 rd Intl Conf Artificial Intelligence and Law, Oxford, UK, June 25–28, ACM Press, New York: 108117.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Jennings, N.R., Faratin, P., Lomuscio, A.R., Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M.J. and Sierra, C. (2001) Automated Negotiation: Prospects, Methods and Challenges, Group Decision and Negotiation, 10 (2): 199–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Katsh E and Rifkin J (2001) Online Dispute Resolution: Resolving Conflicts in Cyberspace, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Kersten GE (1997) Support for Group Decisions and Negotiations, in Climaco J (ed) An Overview, in Multiple Criteria Decision Making and Support, Springer Verlag, Heidelberg.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Kolodner J (1993) Case based reasoning, Morgan Kaufiran. San Mateo, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Kolodner JL and Simpson RL (1989) The Mediator: Analysis of an Early Case-Based Problem Solver, Cognitive Science, 13: 507–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Loui R, Norman J, Altepeter J, Pinkard D, Craven D, Lindsay J and Foltz M (1997) Progress on Room 5: a Testbed for Public Interactive Semi-Formal Legal Argumentation, Proc 6th Intl Conf Artificial Intelligence and Law, Melbourne, Australia, June 30 — July 4, ACM Press, New York: 207–214.

    Google Scholar 

  53. McCarty LT (1977) Reflections on TAXMAN: an experiment in artificial intelligence and legal reasoning, Harvard Law Review, 90: 837–893.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. McCarty LT (1980) The TAXMAN project: Towards a cognitive theory of legal argument, in Niblett B (ed) Computer Science and Law, Cambridge University Press: 23–43.

    Google Scholar 

  55. McCormick DN (1978) Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  56. McKaay E and Robilliard P (1974) Predicting judicial decisions: the nearest neighbour rule and visual representation of case patterns, Datenverarbeitung im Recht: 302–331.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Matthijssen LJ (1999) Interfacing between lawyers and computers. An architecture for knowledge based interfaces to legal databases, Kluwer Law International, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Matwin S, Szpakowicz S, Koperczak Z, Kersten GE and Michalowski G (1989) NEGOPLAN: an Expert System Shell for Negotiation Support, IEEE Expert, 4: 50–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Meachem L (1999) Judicial Business of the United States Courts, Technical Report, Administrative Office of the United States Courts.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Meldman JA (1977) A structural model for computer-aided legal analysis, Rutgers J Computers and Law, 6: 27–71.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Merkl D and Schweighofer D (1997) The Exploration of Legal Text Corpora with Hierarchical Neural Networks: a Guided Tour in Public International Law, Proc 6th Intl Conf Artificial Intelligence and Law, Melbourne, Australia, June 30 — July 4, ACM Press, New York: 98–105.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Michaelsen RH and Michie D (1983) Expert systems in business, Datamation, 29 (11): 240–246.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Moens MF (2000) Automatic indexing and abstracting of document texts, Kluwer International Series on Information Retrieval 6, Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Moles RN and Dayal S (1992) There is more to life than logic, J Law and Information Science, 3 (2): 188–218.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Newell A and Simon H (1972) Human problem solving, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Oskamp A and Tragter MW (1997) Automated legal decision systems in practice: the mirror of reality, Artificial Intelligence & Law, 5 (4), 291–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Pannu AS (1995) Using Genetic Algorithms to Inductively Reason with Cases in the Legal Domain, Proc 5th Intl Conf Artificial Intelligence and Law, College Park, Maryland, ACM Press, New York: 175–184.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Perelman C and Olbrechts-Tyteca L (1969) The New Rhetoric,translated by Wilkenson J and Weaver P, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, IN??, originally published in French as Perelman C and Olbrechts-Tycteca L (1958) La Nouvelle Rhétorique: Traité de l’Argumentation. Presses Universitaires de France.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Popp WG and Schlink B (1975) JUDITH, a computer program to advise lawyers in reasoning a case, Jurimetrics, 15 (4): 303–314.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Popple J (1993) SHYSTER: A pragmatic legal expert system, PhD Dissertation, Australian National University.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Pound R (1908) Mechanical Jurisprudence, Colombia Law Review, 8: 605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Prakken H (1997) Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument. A Study in Defeasible Reasoning in Law, Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Quatrevaux E (1996) Increasing legal services delivery capacity through Information Technology, Technical Report LSC/OIG-95–035, Legal Services Corp, oig.Isc.gov/tech/techdown.htm

    Google Scholar 

  74. Reich Y (1995) Measuring the value of knowledge, Intl J Human-Computer Studies, 42 (1): 3–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Rissland EL and Friedman MT (1995) Detecting change in legal Concepts, Proc 5th Intl Conf Artificial Intelligence and Law, Melbourne, Australia, June 30 — July 4, ACM Press, New York: 127–136.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Rissland EL and Skalak DB (1991) CABARET: Rule interpretation in a hybrid architecture, Intl JMan-Machine Studies, 34 (6): 839–887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Rose DE and Belew RK (1991) A connectionist and symbolic hybrid for improving legal research, Intl JMan-Machine Studies, 35 (1): 1–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Ross HL (1980) Settled Out of Court, Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Schreiber JT, Akkermanis AM, Anjewierden AA, de Hoog R, Shadbolt A, Van de Velde W and Wielinga BJ (1999) Knowledge Engineering and Management: The Common Kads Methodology, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Schum DA (1994) The Evidential Foundation of Probabilistic Reasoning, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Sergot MJ, Sadri F, Kowalski RA, Kriwaczek F, Hammond P and Cory HT (1986) The British Nationality Act as a logic program, Communications ACM, 29: 370–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Shortliffe EH (1976) Computer based medical consultations: MYCIN., Elsevier, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Shpilberg D, Graham LE and Scatz (1986) ExperTAX: an expert system for corporate tax planning, Expert Systems, July.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Smith JC, Gelbart D, MacCrimmon K, Atherton B, McClean J, Shinehoft M, Quintana L, (1995) Artificial Intelligence and Legal Discourse: the Flexlaw Legal Text Management System, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 3: 55–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. SoftLaw (2000) http://www.softlaw.com.au (accessed June 1, 2001).

  86. Stranieri A and Zeleznikow J (1999) Evaluating legal expert systems, Proc 7th Intl Conf Artificial Intelligence and Law, Oslo, Norway, June 15–18, ACM Press, New York: 18–24.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Stranieri A and Zeleznikow J (2001) Copyright Regulation with Argumentation Agents, Information & Communications Technology, 10 (1): 109–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Stranieri A, Zeleznikow J, Gawler M and Lewis B (1999) A hybrid-neural approach to the automation of legal reasoning in the discretionary domain of family law in Australia, Artificial Intelligence and Law 7 (2–3): 153–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Stranieri A, Zeleznikow J and Yearwood J (2001) Argumentation structures that integrate dialectical and monoletical reasoning, Knowledge Engineering Review 16 (4): 331–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Stranieri A, Zeleznikow J and Turner H (2000) Data mining in law with association rules, Proc LASTED Intl Conf Law and Technology (Lawtech2000), San Francisco, California, October 30–November 1, ACTA Press, Anaheim, CA: 129–134.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Susskind R (2000) Transforming the Law: Essays on Technology, Justice and the Legal Marketplace, Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Susskind R and Tindall C (1988) VATIA: Ernst and Whinney’s VAT expert system, Proc 4 th Intl Conf Expert Systems, Learned Information.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Swaffield G (1991) An expert system for stamp duty, Proc 3rd Intl Conf Artificial Intelligence and Law, Oxford, UK, June 25–28, ACM Press, New York: 266–271.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Sycara K (1990) Negotiation planning: an AI approach, European J Operations Research, 46: 216–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Sycara K (1998) Multiagent Systems, AI Magazine, 19 (2): 79–92.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Toulmin S (1958) The Uses of Arguments, Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Turtle H (1995) Text Retrieval in the Legal World, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 3: 5–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Twining WL and Miers D (1982) How To Do Things With Rules (2 nd ed), Weidenfield and Nicolson, London.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Tyree AL, Grenleaf G and Mowbray A (1989) Generating Legal Arguments. Knowledge Based Systems, 2 (1): 46–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. van Engers TM and Glasee E (2001) Facilitating the Legislation Process using a Shared Conceptual Model, IEEE Intelligent Systems: 50–57.

    Google Scholar 

  101. van Engers TM and Kodelaar P (1998) POWER: Program for an Ontology-based working environment for rules and regulations, Proc ISMICK ‘89.

    Google Scholar 

  102. van Kralingen RW (1995) Frame based Conceptual Models of Statute Law, Kluwer Law International, The Hague, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Valente A (1995) Legal Knowledge Engineering; A modeling approach, IOS Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Visser PRS (1995) Knowledge Specification for Multiple Legal Tasks: a Case Study of the Interaction Problem in the Legal Domain,Kluwer Computer/Law Series, 17.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Voermans W and Verharen E (1993) A Semi Intelligent Drafting Support System, Proc 6th Intl Conf Legal Knowledge Based Systems, Koniklijke Vermand, Tilburg, the Netherlands, November 18–19: 81–94.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Vossos G, Zeleznikow J, Moore A and Hunter D (1993) The Credit Act Advisory System (CAAS): Conversion from an expert system prototype to a C++ commercial system, Proc 4` h Intl Conf Artificial Intelligence and Law, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, June 15–18, ACM Press, New York: 180–183.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Waismann F (1951) Verifiability, in Flew A (ed) Logic and Language, Blackwell, Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Walker RF, Oskamp A, Schrickx JA, Opdorp GJ, and van den Berg PH (1991) PROLEXS: Creating law and order in a heterogeneous domain, Intl J Man Machine Studies, 35 (1): 35–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Walton D (1998) The New Dialectic, Pennsylvania State University Press, PA.

    Google Scholar 

  110. Walton D (2002) Legal Argumentation and Evidence, Pennsylvania State University Press, PA.

    Google Scholar 

  111. Walton DN and Krabbe ECW (1995) Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning, SUNY Series in Logic and Language, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  112. Waterman DA and Peterson M (1984) Evaluating civil claims: an expert systems approach, Expert Systems, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  113. Waterman DA, Paul J and Peterson M (1986) Expert systems for legal decision making, Expert Systems, 3 (4): 212–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Wigmore JH (1913) The Principles of Judicial Proof, Little Brown & Co, Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  115. Wilkenfeld, J, Kraus S, Holley KM and Harris MA (1995) GENIE: A decision support system for crisis negotiations, Decision Support Systems, 14: 369–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. Wilkins D and Pillaipakkamnatt K (1997) The Effectiveness of Machine Learning Techniques for Predicting Time to Case Disposition, Proc 6th Intl Conf Artificial Intelligence and Law, Melbourne, Australia, June 30 — July 4, ACM Press, New York: 39–46.

    Google Scholar 

  117. Williams GR (1983) Legal Negotiation and Settlement, West Publishing Co, St Paul, Minnesota.

    Google Scholar 

  118. Zeleznikow J (1991) Building intelligent legal tools–The IKBALS project, J Law and Information Science, 2 (2): 165–184.

    Google Scholar 

  119. Zeleznikow J (2002) Using Web-based Legal Decision Support Systems to Improve Access to Justice, Information and Communications Technology Law, 11(1): 15–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  120. Zeleznikow J (2002) Risk, Negotiation and Argumentation — a decision support system based approach, Law, Probability and Risk, 1: 37–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. Zeleznikow J (2003) An Australian Perspective on Rsearch and Development required for the construction of applied Legal Decision Support Systems, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 10: 237–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  122. Zeleznikow J (2003) The Split-Up project: Induction, context and knowledge discovery in law, Law, Probability and Risk (in press).

    Google Scholar 

  123. Zeleznikow J and Hunter D (1994) Building Intelligent Legal Information Systems: Knowledge Representation and Reasoning in Law, Kluwer Computer/Law Series, 13.

    Google Scholar 

  124. Zeleznikow J, Hunter D and Stranieri A (1997) Using cases to build intelligent decision support systems, Proc IFIP Working Group 2.6 — Database Applications Semantics, Stone Mountain, GA, May 30 - June 2, 1995, (eds) Meersman R and Mark L Chapman & Hall, London, UK: 443460.

    Google Scholar 

  125. Zeleznikow J and Stranieri A (1995) The Split-Up system: Integrating neural networks and rule based reasoning in the legal domain, Proc 5 th Intl Conf Artificial Intelligence and Law, College Park, Maryland, May 21–25, ACM Press, New York: 185–194.

    Google Scholar 

  126. Zeleznikow J and Stranieri A (1998) Split Up: The use of an argument based knowledge representation to meet expectations of different users for discretionary decision making, Proc IAAI’98 — 10 th Annual Conf Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, Madison, Wisconsin, July 27–30, AAAI/MIT Press, Cambridge, MA: 1146–1151.

    Google Scholar 

  127. Zeleznikow J, Meersman R, Hunter D and van Helvoort E (1995) Computer tools for aiding legal negotiation, Proc ACIS95 — 6th Australasian Conf Information Systems, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, WA, September 26–28: 231–251.

    Google Scholar 

  128. Zeleznikow J, Vossos G and Hunter D (1994) The IKBALS project: Multimodal reasoning in legal knowledge based systems, Artificial Intelligence and Law 2 (3): 169–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Edinburgh, Old College, South Bridge, Edinburgh, EH8 9YL, Scotland, UK

    John Zeleznikow

  2. School of Information Systems, Victoria University, PO Box 14428, Melbourne City MC, VIC, 8001, Australia

    John Zeleznikow

Authors
  1. John Zeleznikow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Information, Technology & Computer Science, University of Wollongong, 2522, Wollongong, NSW, Australia

    John Fulcher

  2. Knowledge-Based Intelligent, Engineering Systems Centre, University of South Australia, Mawson Lakes, 5095, Adelaide, Australia

    Lakhmi C. Jain

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2004 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Zeleznikow, J. (2004). Building Intelligent Legal Decision Support Systems: Past Practice and Future Challenges. In: Fulcher, J., Jain, L.C. (eds) Applied Intelligent Systems. Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, vol 153. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-39972-8_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-39972-8_7

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-05942-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-39972-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation