How L4 Addresses Problems in Computational Law

Motivating Computational Law

The overarching theme of computational law is the analysis of legal problems from the perspective of computer science, consistent with the idea that “software is eating the world “.

One of the motivations for computational law is to apply the tools and techniques of computer science to represent legal constructs and automate legal reasoning in more formal ways, that are consumable by machine and ultimately useful to lay end-users.

The Contract Lifecycle Management industry was sized at $1.7B in 2021 and is expected to double to $3B by 2026. Similarly, there is increasing interest in “Rules as Code ” by governments around the world as it promises to bring “digital transformation” to service delivery.

In 2021, Gartner identified machine-readable legislation as a key emerging technology to watch . If computational law is successful in putting laws and contracts on a firmly digital basis, it can serve as a basis for innovation in industries like the legal industry and e-government.

Limits to Computational Law

Not every problem in the legal world will be solved by software.

Most commonly, terms which are ambiugous in some English phrase will need human interpretation, normally through case law.

Computational law also cannot help in situations where

  • Contracting parties are less concerned with the details of their agreement than on agreeing that they have agreed, or

  • Where at least one party is aware that their counterparties may understand the agreement quite differently or not at all, but is prepared to resolve those differences at a later time, after the contract is signed.

How L4 can address problems in Computational Law

We address some of the above difficulties by presenting L4, a Domain-Specific Modelling Language (DSL) for law that allows some form of “”agreed truth”” to be calculated through computational means, rather than disputed before a judge.

In other words, the meaning of a legal construct should be accessible to anyone with a computer. But the legal construct can be accessible only if:

  • the logic is explicit

  • the facts can be affirmed

  • the outputs can be verified

This approach, while not universally applicable, can be useful in many situations where a dispute has not yet arisen, and parties are working in good faith toward a meeting of the minds.

Still, we regard it as a starting point and invite exploration and elaboration.