Prediction on a test set of existing judgments is not the same task as predicting outcomes for a party mid-litigation, because the precise formulation of facts used by such models emerges only once the judgment has been issued.
Source quote, verbatim
for instance, a lawyer advising a client on the probable outcome of a court hearing—does not have access to the precise formulation of facts presented in a judgment, as this formulation emerges only once the judgment has been issued.
From
Wulf A. Kaal, Morgan A. Gray, The Evolving Role of Artificial Intelligence in Law (2025), A. Machine Learning Algorithms, p. 15 https://ssrn.com/abstract=5541658 · source PDF
Cite as
Wulf A. Kaal, Morgan A. Gray, The Evolving Role of Artificial Intelligence in Law (2025). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5541658
Holds when
legal judgment prediction systems trained and evaluated on published judgments
Classification
failuresupport: arguedfailure: judgment leakage in outcome predictionfamily: research-design-limitationlaw-and-legal-systemseconomicsresearch-methods
Verify
The quote above is an exact substring of the source PDF, whose sha256 is e543a2d698fcd522d4d02e034cc9ee1344d0015d2c824b40b9e05ab7c0728c60. Extraction method: pdf-text-layer. Attestation record: colloquium/attestations/04eee958ad4977bb...json Verify the binding yourself: curl -s https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/5541658-008.md | sha256sum