2012 saw the 25th anniversary of the International Conference on AI and Law. This conference series has played an important role in the development of AI and Law, by bringing researchers together and developing a community, and by being the forum in which many important ideas were introduced.

To mark that anniversary of the ICAIL conference, AI and Law journal published an article in which some 20 authors wrote short appreciations of 50 influential papers which appeared at the ICAIL conference.

1 Introduction
1.1 Structure. Trevor Bench-Capon
2 Boston 1987
2.1 Richard K. Belew: A Connectionist Approach to Conceptual Information Retrieval. Commentary by Filipe Borges, Daniele Bourcier and Paul Bourgine
2.2 Carole D. Hafner. Conceptual Organization of Case Law Knowledge Bases. Commentary by Adam Z. Wyner
2.3 Trevor Bench-Capon, Gwen Robinson, Tom Routen, and Marek Sergot. Logic Programming for Large Scale Applications in Law: A Formalisation of Supplementary Benefit Legislation. Commentary by Adam Z. Wyner
2.4 Jon Bing. Designing Text Retrieval Systems for Conceptual Searching. Commentary by Erich Schweighofer
3 Vancouver 1989
3.1 Trevor Bench-Capon. Deep Models, Normative Reasoning and Legal Expert Systems. Commentary by L. Thorne McCarty
3.2 Kevin D. Ashley. Toward a Computational Theory of Arguing with Precedents. Commentary by Henry Prakken
3.3 D. A. Schlobohm and L. Thorne McCarty. EPS II: Estate Planning with Prototypes. Commentary by Kevin Ashley
3.4 Edwina L. Rissland and David B. Skalak. Interpreting Statutory Predicates. Commentary by Ronald P. Loui
4 Oxford 1991
4.1 Joost Breuker and Nienke den Haan. Separating World and Regulation Knowledge: Where is the Logic? Commentary by Trevor Bench-Capon
4.2 Henning Herrestad. Norms and Formalization. Commentary by Guido Governatori
4.3 David B. Skalak and Edwina L. Rissland. Argument Moves in a Rule-Guided Domain. Commentary by Katie Atkinson
5 Amsterdam 1993
5.1 Donald H. Berman and Carole D. Hafner. Representing Teleological Structure in Case-based Legal Reasoning: The Missing Link. Commentary by Trevor Bench-Capon
5.2 L. Karl Branting. A Reduction-Graph Model of Ratio Decidendi. Commentary by L. Thorne McCarty
5.3 Edwina L. Rissland, David B. Skalak and M. Timur Friedman. BankXX: Supporting legal arguments through heuristic retrieval. Commentary by Trevor Bench-Capon
5.4 Thomas F. Gordon. The Pleadings Game; An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice. Commentary by Henry Prakken
5.5 Ronald P. Loui, Jeff Norman, Jon Olson, and Andrew Merrill. A Design for Reasoning with Policies, Precedents, and Rationales. Commentary by Floris Bex
5.6 Trevor Bench-Capon. Neural Networks and Open Texture. Commentary by Bart Verheij
5.7 Giovanni Sartor. A Simple Computational Model for Nonmonotonic and Adversarial Legal Reasoning. Commentary by Guido Governatori
6 University of Maryland 1995
6.1 Haijme Yoshino. The Systematization of Legal Meta-Inference. Commentary by Michał Araszkiewicz
6.2 Henry Prakken. From Logic to Dialectics in Legal Argument. Commentary by Trevor Bench-Capon
6.3 Andre Valente and Joost Breuker. ON-LINE: An Architecture for Modelling Legal Information. Commentary by Enrico Francesconi
6.4 Arthur M. Farley and Kathleen Freeman. Burden of Proof in Legal Argumentation. Commentary by Thomas F. Gordon
6.5 Edwina L. Rissland and M. Timur Friedman. Detecting Change in Legal Concepts. Commentary by Kevin Ashley
6.6 L. Thorne McCarty. An Implementation of Eisner v. Macomber. Commentary by Kevin Ashley
6.7 Edwina L. Rissland and Jody J. Daniels. A hybrid CBR-IR approach to legal information retrieval. Commentary by Adam Z. Wyner
7 Melbourne 1997
7.1 Trevor Bench-Capon and Pepijn Visser. Ontologies in legal information systems; the need for explicit specifications of domain conceptualizations. Commentary by Enrico Francesconi
7.2 Layman E. Allen and Charles S. Saxon. Achieving Fluency in Modernized and Formalized Hohfeld: Puzzles and Games for the LEGAL RELATIONS Language. Commentary by
Ronald P. Loui
7.3 Ronald P. Loui, Jeff Norman, Joe Altepeter, Dan Pinkard, Dan Craven, Jessica Linsday, Mark A. Foltz. Progress on Room 5: a testbed for public interactive semi-formal legal argumentation. Commentary by Bart Verheij
7.4 Thomas F. Gordon and Nikos Karacapilidis. The Zeno Argumentation Framework. Commentary by Katie Atkinson
7.5 J.C. Smith. The Use of Lexicons in Information Retrieval in Legal Databases. Commentary by Erich Schweighofer
7.6 Vincent Aleven and Kevin D. Ashley. Evaluating a Learning Environment for Case-Based Argumentation Skills. Commentary by Trevor Bench-Capon
8 Oslo 1999
8.1 Hadassa Jakobovits and Dirk Vermeir. Dialectic semantics for argumentation frameworks. Commentary by Trevor Bench-Capon
9 St Louis 2001
9.1 Jack G. Conrad, and Daniel P. Dabney. A cognitive approach to judicial opinion structure: applying domain expertise to component analysis. Commentary by Paul Thompson
9.2 Khalid Al-Kofahi, Alex Tyrrell, Arun Vachher and Peter Jackson. A Machine Learning Approach to Prior Case Retrieval. Commentary by Alex Tyrrell
9.3 Jaap Hage. Formalising Legal Coherence. Commentary by Michał Araszkiewicz
9.4 Jean Hall and John Zeleznikow. Acknowledging insufficiency in the evaluation of legal knowledge based systems: Strategies towards a broad based evaluation model. Commentary by Jack G. Conrad
10 Edinburgh 2003
10.1 Alexander Boer, Tom M. van Engers, and RadboudWinkels. Using Ontologies for Comparing and Harmonizing Legislation. Commentary by Enrico Francesconi
10.2 Katie Greenwood, Trevor Bench-Capon and Peter McBurney. Towards a computational account of persuasion in law. Commentary by Henry Prakken
10.3 Stefanie Bruninghaus and Kevin D. Ashley. Predicting Outcomes of Legal Cased-Based Arguments. Commentary by Trevor Bench-Capon
11 Bologna 2005
11.1 Ben Hachey and Claire Grover. Automatic legal text summarisation: experiments with summary structuring. Commentary by Frank Schilder
12 Stanford University 2007
12.1 Henry Prakken and Giovanni Sartor. Formalising Arguments about the Burden of Persuasion. Commentary by Douglas N. Walton
12.2 Floris Bex, Henry Prakken and Bart Verheij. Formalising Argumentative Story-based Analysis of Evidence. Commentary by Douglas N. Walton
12.3 Jack G. Conrad and Frank Schilder. Opinion mining in legal blogs. Commentary by Jochen L. Leidner
12.4 Jason R. Baron and Paul Thompson. The search problem posed by large heterogeneous data sets in litigation: possible future approaches to research. Commentary by Dave Lewis
13 Barcelona 2009
13.1 Kevin D. Ashley. Ontological requirements for analogical, teleological, and hypothetical legal reasoning. Commentary by L. Thorne McCarty
13.2 Raquel Mochales and Marie-Francine Moens, Automatic detection of arguments in legal texts. Commentary by Floris Bex
14 Pittsburgh 2011
14.1 Jeroen Keppens. On extracting arguments from Bayesian network representations of evidential reasoning. Commentary by Floris Bex.
14.2 Mihai Surdeanu, Ramesh Nallapati, George Gregory, JoshuaWalker and Christopher D. Manning. Risk Analysis for Intellectual Property Litigation. Commentary by Jack G. Conrad
14.3 Floris Bex and Bart Verheij. Legal shifts in the process of proof Commentary by Michał Araszkiewicz
14.4 Alexander Boer and Tom M. van Engers. An Agent-based Legal Knowledge Acquisition Methodology for Agile Public Administration. Commentary by Erich Schweighofer
15 Looking to the Future
15.1 Towards ICAIL 2013 in Rome: the start of the next 25 years of the research program AI and Law: Bart Verheij

Get in touch with us on Linkedin

Join the IAAIL group on Linkedin! Your posts will be shared on the IAAIL website

Contact us

International Association for AI and Law

Send us an email