An AI-driven algorithm can predict how judges will rule in civil cases based on their net worth, political affiliation and law school attendance, providing recommendations to attorneys and plaintiffs on how to best invest their resources. It turns the art of finding sympathetic judges, or "judge picking," into an exact science.
"Judge selection" refers to finding a judge or replacing an assigned judge to hear a case in the hope of obtaining a more favorable outcome. Although it is an open secret in the legal community, "judge selection" is considered to be an abuse of process for one's own tactical gain and to the detriment of the fairness of the judicial system.
This tactic made headlines earlier this year when reports emerged that U.S. anti-abortion groups were challenging the Food and Drug Administration's approval of an abortion pill in Amarillo, Texas, rather than in Maryland, where the FDA is headquartered. The choice of Amarillo as the venue was no coincidence: The small city has only one federal courthouse, presided over by a single federal judge, ultraconservative U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk.
Now, artificial intelligence makes picking judges easier. In January 2023, Pre/Dicta, the only litigation analysis platform that can predict the outcome of federal litigation, acquired Gavelytics, a state court judicial analysis platform. 95% of cases in the United States are heard in state courts.
Pre/Di CTA is an AI-driven dataset that predicts how judges will rule in civil cases based on their biographical details—net worth, political affiliation, appointees, education, and work experience—as well as their sentencing history, regardless of relevant law or case facts. Pre/Dicta is designed to help attorneys and plaintiffs decide how best to invest their time and resources, with an accuracy rate of 86%. It is worth noting that Pre/Dicta cannot predict the outcome of criminal cases and jury trials.
CEO and co-founder Dan Rabinowitz said at the launch of the platform in June 2022: "Pre/Dicta helps top litigators understand and apply judicial conduct in a way that humans cannot. We believe our motion to dismiss prediction tool, along with other tools to be launched soon, will be an integral part of any top litigator's overall litigation experience." "
Launched in 2017 and prior to Pre/Dicta, Gavelytics was the market leader in state court litigation analytics and by 2022 had expanded its geographic coverage to 25 U.S. states, collecting data points not only from judges, but also from law firms, attorneys and litigants. This information has now been added to the Pre/Dicta dataset.
"This deal is a major milestone for Pre/Dicta and the entire field of predictive litigation analytics," Rabinowitz said of Pre/Dicta's acquisition of Gavelytics. "By acquiring Gavelytics' state court assets, Pre/Dicta dramatically accelerates the creation of the litigator's holy grail: a predictive product for every lawsuit nationwide."
T AGPH2
So far, judges appear to have avoided becoming targets of artificial intelligence. Instead, much of the discussion about the impact of AI on the legal industry has focused on how to make time-consuming manual tasks, such as research or document drafting, more efficient.
So, are AI-driven platforms like Pre/Dicta a good thing? Putting aside the "judge selection" issue, it has some clear advantages. First, litigation is expensive, so letting plaintiffs know whether their money is getting their money's worth is arguably an important consideration. And if more people decide not to litigate based on AI’s win predictions, it could reduce the backlog of cases in an already clogged system.
However, the problem of selecting judges remains, and with the help of artificial intelligence, this phenomenon is likely to become more common. In April 2023, Democratic Senator Mazie Hirono introduced a bill that would provide the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (DC) with exclusive jurisdiction over cases with national impact such as immigration and campaign finance challenges, in an effort to curb judge picking.
Hronow said in a press release: "When litigants get to choose their judge, it creates the perception that they can predetermine the outcome of their case, undermining the integrity of our federal judicial system. Aggressive plaintiffs should not be able to hand-pick individual judges to rule the day." "
Time will tell what impact Pre/Dicta will have on the practice of selecting judges, especially on issues of national interest. But this phenomenon is unlikely to disappear anytime soon.