In 2016, more than three million decisions, civil and criminal litigation combined, were handed down in the courts. However, Legifrance has only disseminated around 13, or only 000 to 3% of the total... But with the programming law for justice of March 4, 23, the revolution of open data of court decisions is seemingly he walks. Litigants and legal professionals could benefit from this major novelty. So, what exactly can we expect from the opening of justice data?
Open data of court decisions: the current situation in France
Initiated in 2016, open data will come to fruition with the programming law of March 23, 2019.
The technical challenge of opening data
Open data was introduced by law n°2016-1321 for a digital Republic of October 7, 2016 (articles 20 and 21). But, it is above all the 2017 report delivered by the study mission led by Loïc Cadiet which helped advance the debate on open data by updating 20 recommendations to make the opening of data possible.
Thus, open data seems to be confirmed with the project of 2018-2022 programming and justice reform law (law no. 2019-222 of March 23, 2019). This project plans to make open data on court decisions a vector for the digital transformation of justice and access to the law for all. To this end, the open data of court decisions will be managed by the supreme courts of the judicial and administrative order. We are still awaiting the implementing decree specifying the contours of the reform and its practical arrangements. It will be necessary to implement a process 3 times:
- Collection of case law data,
- Processing and anonymization of decisions,
- Diffusion
Concretely, the Court of Cassation already manages 2 databases: Jurinet and Jurica. For the High Court, the transition will consist of moving from still unfinished processing of data to mass processing a large amount of data. Large-scale distribution should take place on its website.
Necessary regulation in the face of remaining uncertainties
Already, the open data of court decisions implies a reinforced anonymization for magistrates, members of the registry, lawyers as well as for individuals. Pseudonymization as it currently stands has shown its limits and will need to be strengthened to guarantee respect for privacy and the protection of personal data. Get rid of the risk of reidentification will also be a must.
Another problem: not all court decisions should be put on the same footing. If the information and transparency is laudable, the analysis of this information must be put into perspective. Indeed, the mass of data can only prove useful if it is organized and thoroughly sorted to get it out of this shapeless magma and be able to learn from it.
Therefore, it will also be necessary to keep an eye on the algorithms allowing decisions to be analyzed to ensure their reliability but also to become aware of their limits. A joint body between the Court of Cassation and the National Bar Council will soon be set up to supervise the regulation Datas.
The challenges of releasing justice data
The open data of court decisions causes various direct and indirect consequences for legal professionals.
New perspectives for the legal market
Certain legal publishers but especially certain legal start-ups or legaltech need data from judicial decisions. Indeed, thanks to artificial intelligence and algorithms, it may be possible to mix a very large number of data and derive insights from it. statistics interesting for litigants and lawyers. Players like Lexbase, Doctrine, Predictice, Case Law Analytics and JuriPredis have addressed these issues.
Thus, access to this data will make it possible to deduce the chances of loss or gain in a lawsuit, and even to estimate a quantified range of damages in certain disputes. Controversial and contested within the world of law, the predictive justice, which some prefer to call quantitative justice, will rely on accessible data to form forecasts. Without being an exact and general science, these probabilities could nevertheless be a useful tool for professionals. For example, lawyers will be able to build a judicial strategy by focusing on the arguments that fly in court. The opening of data could also highlight the sterile nature of certain trials and perhaps encourage the extrajudicial resolution of disputes.
The change in professional practices
Another opportunity highlighted by the Cadiet report, open data could facilitate automation of some simple tasks for legal professionals and lawyers in the first place.
This will allow lawyers to focus on high value-added activities rather than wasting time on less complex tasks. The assistance of technological tools of tomorrow, like the cloud,Jarvis Legal API or of course open data, will allow information to circulate and different solutions to discuss with each other to facilitate the daily lives of professionals who will rely on these tools.
By authorizing broad access to legal information, open data on court decisions demonstrates the desire to make justice more transparent. Although open data is still in its infancy, it nevertheless opens up interesting perspectives that need to be supervised and regulated. So many opportunities for the future that must be seized!
