Empirical analysis of binding precedent efficiency in Brazilian Supreme Court via case classification
This work addresses the inefficiency of binding precedents in reducing repetitive demands for legal researchers and practitioners, but it is incremental as it applies existing NLP methods to a specific legal domain.
The study tackled the problem of assessing the legal impact of binding precedents in the Brazilian Supreme Court by comparing NLP methods for case classification, finding that TF-IDF performed slightly better than deep learning models but the latter detected important legal events missed by TF-IDF.
Binding precedents (súmulas vinculantes) constitute a juridical instrument unique to the Brazilian legal system and whose objectives include the protection of the Federal Supreme Court against repetitive demands. Studies of the effectiveness of these instruments in decreasing the Court's exposure to similar cases, however, indicate that they tend to fail in such a direction, with some of the binding precedents seemingly creating new demands. We empirically assess the legal impact of five binding precedents, 11, 14, 17, 26, and 37, at the highest Court level through their effects on the legal subjects they address. This analysis is only possible through the comparison of the Court's ruling about the precedents' themes before they are created, which means that these decisions should be detected through techniques of Similar Case Retrieval, which we tackle from the angle of Case Classification. The contributions of this article are therefore twofold: on the mathematical side, we compare the use of different methods of Natural Language Processing -- TF-IDF, LSTM, Longformer, and regex -- for Case Classification, whereas on the legal side, we contrast the inefficiency of these binding precedents with a set of hypotheses that may justify their repeated usage. We observe that the TF-IDF models performed slightly better than LSTM and Longformer when compared through common metrics; however, the deep learning models were able to detect certain important legal events that TF-IDF missed. On the legal side, we argue that the reasons for binding precedents to fail in responding to repetitive demand are heterogeneous and case-dependent, making it impossible to single out a specific cause. We identify five main hypotheses, which are found in different combinations in each of the precedents studied.