Using Argumentation Schemes to Model Legal Reasoning
This addresses the need for structured reasoning models in legal AI, but it is incremental as it builds on existing argumentation frameworks.
The paper tackles the problem of modeling legal reasoning by introducing argumentation schemes for factor ascription, issue resolution, and outcome determination, with examples from US Trade Secrets law and discussion of broader applicability.
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.