Ossowski (ed.): Agreement Technologies

Springer has published an article collection entitled Agreement Technologies (2013), edited by Professor Dr. Sascha Ossowski of Universidad Rey Juan Carlos.

The book is volume 8 in the the Law, Governance and Technology Series.

Here are excerpts from the preface:

This book describes the state of the art in the emerging field of Agreement Technologies (AT). AT refer to computer systems in which autonomous software agents negotiate with one another, typically on behalf of humans, in order to come to mutually acceptable agreements. [...]

The book was produced in the framework of [the EU-funded] COST Action IC0801 on Agreement Technologies.

This book [...] is subdivided into seven parts.

• Part I is dedicated to foundational issues of Agreement Technologies, examining the notion of agreement and agreement processes from different perspectives. [...]
• Part II outlines the relevance of novel approaches to Semantics and ontological alignments in distributed settings.
• Part III gives an overview of approaches for modelling norms and normative systems, the simulation of their dynamics, and their
  impact on the other key areas of Agreement Technologies.
• Part IV discusses how to design computational organisations, how to reason about them, and how organisational models can be evolved.
• Part V gives an overview of current approaches to argumentation and negotiation, and how they can be used to inform human reasoning, as well as to assist machine reasoning.
• Part VI describes different models and mechanisms of trust and reputation, and discusses their relevance for the other key areas of Agreement Technologies. [...]
• Part VII provides examples of how the techniques outlined in the previous parts of the book can be used to build distributed software applications that solve real-world problems.

Please notice that the parts are supported by a set of video-lectures that can be freely downloaded from the web.

Call for Papers: ICAIL 2013: International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law

A call for papers — with paper submission deadline of 18 January 2013 — has been issued for ICAIL 2013: 14th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, to be held 10-14 June 2013 in Rome, Italy.

The Twitter account for the conference is @ICAIL2013 . The Twitter hashtag for the conference is #ICAIL2013. The conference organizers invite those interested to follow the Twitter account and hashtag and to comment and contribute with the latest news.

The conference features two tracks: one for “regular papers” and one for “innovative applications papers.”

Here is the complete list of deadlines:

• Mentoring program request deadline: November 9, 2012
• Mentoring program paper deadline: November 16, 2012
• Submission of workshop and tutorial proposals: December 7, 2012
• Submission of abstracts (optional): January 11, 2013
• Submission of papers deadline: January 18, 2013
• Notification of acceptance: March 20, 2013
• Final revised and formatted papers due: April 19, 2013
• Conference: June 10 – June 14, 2013

Papers are invited on the following topics:

• Formal and computational models of legal reasoning
• Knowledge acquisition techniques for the legal domain, including natural language processing and data mining
• Computational models of argumentation and decision making
• Legal knowledge representation including legal ontologies and common sense knowledge
• Automatic legal text classification and summarization
• Automated information extraction from legal databases and texts
• Machine learning and data mining applied to legal databases
• Conceptual or model-based legal information retrieval
• E-discovery and e-disclosure
• E-government and e-justice
• Computational models of evidential reasoning
• Modeling norms for multi-agent systems
• Modeling negotiation and contract formation
• Computational models of case-based legal reasoning
• Online dispute resolution
• Intelligent legal tutoring systems
• Intelligent support systems for the legal domain
• Interdisciplinary applications of legal informatics methods and systems

For more information, please see the call for papers.

HT Anne Gardner

[NOTE: Updated 23 November 2012 to add the Twitter account and hashtag. HT Enrico Francesconi]

Okamoto Wins NSF Grant to Develop Virtual Law Practice Platform to Train Law Students

Professor Karl Okamoto of Drexel University College of Law has been awarded a National Science Foundation grant to develop a virtual law practice platform for use by law students learning practice skills, according to Dara McBride’s article, Drexel law professor creates a virtual venue for getting real-world experience, Philadelphia Inquirer, 14 August 2012.

The platform is called LawMeets.

Click here for a description of the grant.

In a tweet today LawMeets suggested it may be willing to share its code.

HT @stephkimbro.

Call for Papers: Online Dispute Resolution Workshop 2010 @ JURIX

A call for papers — with submission deadline of 10 November 2010 — has been issued for ODR Workshop 2010: The 6th International Workshop on Online Dispute Resolution, to be held 15 December 2010 in Liverpool, England, UK, in conjunction with JURIX 2010.

The theme of the workshop is: “Web 2.0, semantic web and the mobile web.”

Papers are invited on the following topics:

• “Argumentation and ODR
• Decision support for ODR
• Theories of dispute resolution and ODR
• Modeling and designing of ODR systems
• Tools and techniques for assisted negotiation, automated negotiation, online mediation, and online arbitration
• Empirical research on ODR use cases and projects
• ODR in e-commerce
• ODR in e-government
• ODR and e-justice
• ODR in peace-building processes
• ODR in online communities
• Mobile ODR
• Reputation issues in ODR
• Psychological and cognitive factors in ODR
• ODR protocols and standards
• Legal issues in ODR”

For more information, please see the call for papers.

HT @rinkehoekstra.

DEON 2010 Proceedings Available

Proceedings are available for DEON 2010: The 10th International Conference on Deontic Logic in Computer Science, held 7-9 July 2010 in Fiesole, Florence, Italy.

The proceedings were edited by Giovanni Sartor and Guido Governatori.

Abstracts of the law-related papers presented at the conference will be posted here shortly.

Click here for the conference Website.

Robbennolt on Apologies and Legal Negotiation

Professor Jennifer K. Robbennolt of the University of Illinois College of Law will publish an overview of her empirical research on the effect of apologies on legal negotiation, in an upcoming issue of Court Review, according to a University of Illinois press release (2 June 2010).

According to Professor Robbennolt, the Court Review article will discuss the following, previously published articles:

• Jennifer K. Robbennolt, Attorneys, Apologies, and Settlement Negotiations, 13 Harvard Negotiation Law Review 349 (2008) (Issue No. 2, pages 349-398) (click here for full text preprint).
  

  Abstract: Empirical researchers have begun to explore the influence of apologies on litigant decision making. This research has found that the effects of apologies on decision making are complex, but that apologies generally influence claimants’ perceptions, judgments, and decisions in ways that are likely to make settlement more likely – for example, altering perceptions of the dispute and the disputants, decreasing negative emotion, improving expectations about the future conduct and relationship of the parties, changing negotiation aspirations and fairness judgments, and increasing willingness to accept an offer of settlement.
  Legal negotiation, however, is often characterized by the involvement of attorneys in the negotiation process. There are reasons to anticipate that attorneys may respond differently to apologies than do their clients. Attorneys as agents occupy qualitatively different roles in the process than do their clients and may have an orientation toward analytical thinking and legal rules that influences their understanding of the implications of apologies. This paper empirically explores how attorneys respond to apologies offered in litigation as they advise claimants about settlement, and compares the reactions of attorneys to those of claimants. While attorneys understand the information conveyed by apologies in ways that are strikingly similar to claimants, attorneys’ judgments about settlement when apologies are offered diverge from those of claimants.

• Jennifer K. Robbennolt, Apologies and Settlement Levers, 3 Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 333 (2006) (Issue No. 2, pages 333-373) (click here for full text preprint).
  

  Abstract: This study uses experimental methods to explore the role of apologies in legal settlement negotiation. Specifically, the study examines the influences of apologies on disputants’ perceptions, and the effects of apologies on a number of judgments that influence negotiation outcomes—settlement levers such as reservation, aspirations, and judgments of fair settlement amounts. Five-hundred-fifty-six participants were asked to take the role of potential plaintiffs, to provide their reactions to an experimental scenario, and to indicate the values they would set for each settlement lever. The nature of the communication with the offender and the description of the evidentiary rule governing the admissibility of the offender’s statement were manipulated. The data suggest that apologies can promote settlement by altering the injured parties’ perceptions of the situation and the offender so as to make them more amenable to settlement discussions and by altering the values of the injured parties’ settlement levers in ways that are likely to increase the chances of settlement. The results suggest further, however, that the nature of the apology itself, as well as the factual circumstances surrounding the incident, may play important roles in how apologies are understood.

• Jennifer K. Robbennolt, Apologies and Legal Settlement: An Empirical Examination, 102 Michigan Law Review 460 (2003) (Issue No. 3, pages 460-516) (click here for full text preprint).
  

  Abstract: The conventional wisdom has been that U.S. legal culture discourages apologies. Defendants worry that apologies will be admissible at trial and interpreted as admissions of responsibility. In recent years, however, legal scholars have debated the merits of encouraging parties to apologize. Proponents of apologies claim that apologies will avert lawsuits and promote settlement. Consistent with this view, legislatures in several states have enacted statutes that make certain apologies inadmissible. In addition, some have argued that defendants might craft their apologies to better insulate them from legal liability (e.g., offering a mere expression of sympathy) in order to reap the benefits of apologizing while minimizing the risks. On the other side, however, critics of these so-called safe apologies have argued that apologies that avoid the legal consequences of apologizing are devoid of moral content and likely ineffectual. Much of this debate, however, has occurred in the absence of sound empirical data.
  The article reports the findings of two experimental studies in which participants were asked to read a vignette describing an accident, to take on the role of the injured party, to indicate whether or not they were likely to accept a settlement offer from the other party, and to respond to a series of questions about the situation.
  In the first study, a full, responsibility accepting, apology increased the likelihood that the offer would be accepted. In contrast, a partial, sympathy expressing, apology increased participants’ uncertainty about whether or not to accept the offer. In addition, a full apology (but not a partial apology) resulted in more positive ratings of numerous variables that are thought to underlie the settlement decision. These underlying judgments provided the mechanism by which apologies influenced settlement decisions. Importantly for the debate over evidentiary protection for apologies, the nature of the applicable evidentiary rule did not influence the apologies’ effect on settlement decisions nor did these rules influence participants’ perceptions of the situation or the offender.
  Consistent with the results of the first study, the second study found that apologies influenced participants’ attributions and perceptions of the situation and the offender. Overall, full apologies improved the participants’ perceptions of the situation and the offender, while partial apologies did little to alter such perceptions. There were patterns in the data suggesting both that partial apologies may negatively impact perceptions where responsibility is relatively clear or where the injury is more severe and that partial apologies may positively impact perceptions where responsibility is relatively less clear or where the injury is relatively minor. In addition, and again consistent with the results of the first study, this study provided no evidence that the nature of the applicable evidentiary rule will influence participants’ perceptions of the situation, the offender, or the apology.
  These findings provide some guidance for policymakers and litigants or potential litigants with difficult decisions to make about the appropriate evidentiary protection for apologies, whether to offer an apology to an opposing party in civil litigation, and how to respond to an apology so offered.

Thanks to Professor Robbennolt for providing links to abstracts and preprints.

Zeleznikow on The Need to Incorporate Justice into Negotiation Support Systems

Professor John Zeleznikow of Victoria University has published The Need to Incorporate Justice into Negotiation Support Systems, in Business Information Systems Workshops: BIS 2009 International Workshops, Poznan, Poland, April 27-29, 2009, Revised Papers (2009).

The paper was originally presented at LIT 2009: The 2nd Workshop on Legal Informatics and Legal Information Technology, held 28 April 2009 in Poznan, Poland.

Here is the abstract of the paper:

Over the past twenty five years there has been a movement towards resolving legal disputes through mediation and negotiation rather than litigation. Perceived benefits of this move towards Alternative Dispute Resolution include disputants having more control of the dispute and potential solutions, reduced costs and speedier decision making. If Alternative Dispute Resolution becomes the norm for resolving legal disputes, then we must ensure that the negotiation support systems that we develop utilize legally fair paradigms. But how can we develop measures, or at the very least principles, for the development of legally just? Through an examination of bargaining in the shadow of the law and principled negotiation we suggest principles which when applied, will encourage fairness and justice in the development of negotiation support systems. Such principles include transparency, bargaining in the shadow of the law and the need for discovery. We also illustrate the pitfalls of using such principles.

Black, Hyman & Silver on The Effects of “Early Offers” in Medical Malpractice Cases: Evidence from Texas

Professor Bernard Black of the University of Texas School of Law, Professor David A. Hyman of the University of Illinois College of Law, and Professor Charles Silver of the University of Texas School of Law, have published The Effects of “Early Offers” in Medical Malpractice Cases: Evidence from Texas, 6 Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 723 (2009). Here is the abstract:

“Medical malpractice litigation is costly and time consuming. Professor Jeffrey O’Connell, with various co-authors, has long advocated ‘early offer’ rules that would encourage defendants to offer to settle for economic damages plus attorney fees, and punish plaintiffs who refuse such offers. Using detailed closed claims data from Texas for 1988–2005, we simulate the effects of these ‘early offers.’ Under a base set of assumptions, early offers will sharply reduce payouts in cases with small economic damages (under $100,000, all amounts in 1988 dollars); will moderately reduce payouts in currently tried cases with economic damages from $100,000–$200,000 and would normally increase payouts (and therefore will not be made) in tried (settled) cases with economic damages over $200,000 ($100,000). Overall, we predict that early offers will be made in 72 percent of all cases, and will result in a 16 percent (20 percent) decline in payouts in tried (settled) cases. Almost all this effect comes from the sharp decline in payouts in cases with small economic damages. Defense costs will drop by roughly 60 percent (20 percent) in currently tried (settled) cases in which an early offer is made, and by about 13 percent overall. An early offer program will have very different effects on different types of plaintiffs, with especially large payout reductions for elderly and deceased plaintiffs. An early offer program also overlaps substantially in its effects with a statutory cap on noneconomic damages (which 26 states already have). Defendants in many of these states have already realized large reductions in payment of noneconomic damages; the additional reductions from an early offer program are modest and would often affect plaintiffs whose recoveries were already limited by damage caps. Our mixed results contrast sharply with dramatic claims by O’Connell and co-authors, who predict 70 percent reductions in both payouts and defense costs. Their estimates reflect the compound effects of a series of unreasonable assumptions.”

Lin & Kraus, Can Automated Agents Proficiently Negotiate With Humans?

Dr. Raz Lin and Professor Kraus Sarit, both of the Bar-Ilan University Computer Science Department, have published a review essay entitled Can Automated Agents Proficiently Negotiate With Humans?, Communications of the ACM (CACM), January 2010, at 78. Here is a summary:

In this article, the authors review current research on systems in which automated agents negotiate with humans. They “focus on the question of whether an automated agent can proficiently negotiate with human negotiators.” They “concentrate on adversarial bilateral bargaining in which the automated agent is matched with people.” The law-related systems discussed include various kinds of ecommerce as well as noneconomic bargaining.

Call for Papers: DEON 2010

[NOTE: Updated on 17 January 2010 to revise submission dates.]

A call for papers — with abstract submission deadline of 20 27 February 2010 and paper submission deadline of 6 March 2010 — has been issued for DEON 2010: The 10th International Conference on Deontic Logic in Computer Science, to be held 7-9 July 2010 in Florence, Italy. The conference has a special focus on Deontic Logic and Legal Systems. Papers are invited on the following topics:

• “Legal rights
• Completeness and indeterminacy in legal systems
• Kinds of legal norms
• Modelling norms and values
• Legal power and competences
• The dynamic of legal systems
• Compliance and enforcement of obligations
• Contracts and other constitutive acts
• The logical study of normative reasoning, including formal systems of deontic logic, defeasible normative reasoning, the logic of action, and other related areas of logic
• The formal analysis of normative concepts and normative systems
  the formal representation of legal knowledge
• The formal specification of aspects of norm-governed multi-agent systems and autonomous agents, including (but not limited to) the representation of rights, authorisation, delegation, power, responsibility and liability
• The formal specification of normative systems for the management of bureaucratic processes in public or private administration
• Applications of normative logic to the specification of database integrity constraints
• Normative aspects of protocols for communication, negotiation and multi-agent decision making.”

For more information, please see the call for papers.