[NolF]

Yes and no. Court decisions do generally follow a structure, but the decisions and the reasons for a final determination, may not always be clear. Judges also may throw in hypotheticals which whilst informative are not determinative. Once it gets to appellate courts and with different judges which may agree with the same outcome but on different grounds, it can get really hard to distinguish what is the test and the factors for a certain determination. It can also happen that dissenting opinions can be very persuasive, and subsequently adopted.

The task effectively also requires a case and paragraph impact meter which do exist in some law databases to one extend or another, effectively weighing how subsequent rulings consider, weight, and follow past cases, caveats, exceptions, and outright considering past rulings as bad law.

Then you have the issue of changing laws and the impact these may have on past cases as they may change the test and requirements needed to be considered and even much new case law needed to be developed to interpret the new legislation. So the model would need to have a historical knowledge of the law and how it was applied.

You would also need to feed it relevant surrounding information that may aid in interpreting said law. In the US, clearly the founding father's opinions and beliefs appear to play a significant part on the currently more originalist interpretative school of thought.

In the UK/Australia for example readings in parliament and even the underpinning reports that prompted the change in legislation may be considered where there is ambiguity in order to interpret legislation. Australian legislation nowadays also tends to incorporate an objective of the legislation and a section that says that where ambiguity exists to interpret it in a way that would further the objectives of the legislation.

So, it's really not a trivial problem.

[manquer]

Not decisions by judges[1]!, filings by lawyers can be pretty proforma, in a ton of places they literally just fill your details and "generate" a filing.

Not every filing is generate-able for sure, however there are already tools which do create standard filings for human review, this would be just an enchantment covering some more use cases.

[1] It is vast gulf between generating a filing and generating a judgement. LLMs are not decision engines, generating text basis what is most likely from past data is one of worst ways we can be making decisions.