Abstract:This report addresses the challenge of limited labeled datasets for developing legal recommender systems, particularly in specialized domains like labor disputes. We propose a new approach leveraging the co-citation of legal articles within cases to establish similarity and enable algorithmic annotation. This method draws a parallel to the concept of case co-citation, utilizing cited precedents as indicators of shared legal issues. To evaluate the labeled results, we employ a system that recommends similar cases based on plaintiffs' accusations, defendants' rebuttals, and points of disputes. The evaluation demonstrates that the recommender, with finetuned text embedding models and a reasonable BiLSTM module can recommend labor cases whose similarity was measured by the co-citation of the legal articles. This research contributes to the development of automated annotation techniques for legal documents, particularly in areas with limited access to comprehensive legal databases.
Abstract:We present a hybrid mechanism for recommending similar cases of labor and employment litigations. The classifier determines the similarity based on the itemized disputes of the two cases, that the courts prepared. We cluster the disputes, compute the cosine similarity between the disputes, and use the results as the features for the classification tasks. Experimental results indicate that this hybrid approach outperformed our previous system, which considered only the information about the clusters of the disputes. We replaced the disputes that were prepared by the courts with the itemized disputes that were generated by GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, and repeated the same experiments. Using the disputes generated by GPT-4 led to better results. Although our classifier did not perform as well when using the disputes that the ChatGPT generated, the results were satisfactory. Hence, we hope that the future large-language models will become practically useful.