I am a legal theorist who uses empirical and computational methods to investigate courts and answer classical jurisprudential questions. I analyze legal argumentation through content analysis and state-of-the-art NLP to generate evidence-based insights into judicial decision-making. My overarching aim is to bridge legal theory with computational and empirical methods to clarify (and support) what lawyers do on a daily basis: interpret and apply the law.
I focus on two core areas: formalism and correctness.
First, I use argument mining to examine decisions from Supreme Courts in Central Europe and to assess whether their decisions and prevailing interpretative theories can be considered formalistic (as often claimed).
Second, I analyse appellate court decisions alongside legal dogmatics to explore when and why lower court rulings are overturned, aiming to clarify the boundary between correct and incorrect application of law.
I initiated and co-run two regular sessions in Legal Theory and AI&Law:
1) Jurisprudential Cocktails and
2) AI&Law Seminar Series.
Feel free to join both of of these no matter your background or seniority! See above for details.
The recording of my presentation for the Czech judiciary on our legal argument mining project is available in Czech here (5:06:58).
Recent workshop on argument mining and empirical legal research I co-organized at ICAIL in Chicago can be found here.