Using Argumentation Schemes to Model Legal Reasoning
Trevor Bench-Capon, Katie Atkinson
TL;DR
This paper introduces argumentation schemes tailored for modeling legal reasoning, specifically addressing the stages following fact establishment in US Trade Secrets law, with potential broader applications.
Contribution
It develops structured argumentation schemes for each legal reasoning stage, enhancing understanding and modeling of legal decision processes.
Findings
Schemes effectively model legal reasoning stages
Illustrations demonstrate applicability in US Trade Secrets law
Discussion suggests wider applicability of the schemes
Abstract
We present argumentation schemes to model reasoning with legal cases. We provide schemes for each of the three stages that take place after the facts are established: factor ascription, issue resolution and outcome determination. The schemes are illustrated with examples from a specific legal domain, US Trade Secrets law, and the wider applicability of these schemes is discussed.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsMulti-Agent Systems and Negotiation · Artificial Intelligence in Law · Business Law and Ethics