Computer Programming and the Law

Paul Ohm, one of the developers of AltLaw, writes about “Computer Programming and the Law: A New Research Agenda” in the Villanova Law Review (Vol. 54, 2009).

Paul Ohm states: ” I propose a new interdisciplinary research agenda called Computer Programming and the Law.  This speciality resides where law intersects computer programming, computer science, and information technology.  Like “Law and Economics” or “Law and Social Sciences,” Computer Programming and the Law has practical and theoretical dimensions; it imports into the law both the techniques used by computer programmers and the theories behind the science…. Compared to what researchers can accomplish today, researcher-programmers will produce the same output for lower cost or a better end product for the same cost.”

He offers some great examples of the power that programming can unleash in the law — from better data gathering and mining to visualization. 

Ohm’s discussion of “Improved Legal Research” really nails the current problem:

“The failure to embrace innovation plagues not only law professors; all lawyers find themselves trapped in technological backwaters due to some simple economic truths: Lawyers tend to be willing to spend too much for second-rate software and remain too easily impressed by low-tech advances.  This deadly combination gives vendors of legal research tools little incentive to invest in expensive research and development….

These reasons account for why the duopoly of Westlaw and Lexis has survived for so long, despite its relatively crude legal research tools.  These companies charge exorbitant rates while virtually ignoring the remarkable advances in search engine technology, because their lawyer-clients demand nothing better.”

Ohm’s prediction for the future is based on his work on Altlaw, and on other innovators such as Justia.com, Public.Resource.org, Internet Archive and Fastcase.com

He writes:  “We now exchange data and support one another, and I predict that within five years, legal researchers will have several freely accessible, web-based databases containing all federal and state case law, with better search engines and faster performance than the for-pay services.  Either we will be freed from the walled gardens of Westlaw and Lexis, or the duopolists will be forced to innovate to compete.”

Is there a Charter Right to Access Government Information?

Looking north, in the Dalhousie Law Journal, Vincent Kazmierski has an article entitled, “Something to Talk About: Is There a Charter Right to Access Government Information?” (Volume 31, Fall 2008)

The article’s abstract reads:

“Can sections 2(b) and 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms be interpreted to protect a constitutional right of access to government information?  The author argues that  the constitutional principle of democracy provides a foundation for judicial recognition of such a  constitutional right of access even though the inclusion of an explicit right to access to government information was rejected during the process of drafting the Charter.  Given that the Supreme Court of Canada’s section 2(b) and 3 jurisprudence has been informed by the principle of democracy, the application of the principle may now guide the Court to include protection of access to government information in its evolving interpretation of these Charter rights. ”

Something to talk about, indeed.

JURISTAS – European Court of Human Rights

JURISTAS provides country specific case studies of litigation at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg.  Case studies include Austria, Bulgaria, France , Germany, Greece, Romania, and Turkey. The reports detail litigation by subject and  domestic enforcement of ECHR judgments.

The Strasbourg Court, Democracy and the Human Rights of Individuals and Communities: Patterns of Litigation, State Implementation and Domestic Reform (JURISTRAS)

http://www.juristras.eliamep.gr/

Rejecta Lex?

In this week’s Economist, there is a short article entitled “Huddled Maths” about Rejecta Mathematica, an open-source ‘academic journal’ for works rejected elsewhere.

As the article writes: “Rejecta’s larger purpose, then, may be a light jab at academia’s bureaucracy and the rigmarole to which it is necessary to submit in order to get published.”

Rejecta Lex anyone?  And, if it could rank the most popular (rejected) works….