On a possible algorithm for

automated litigation
аt the moment, judgment prediction systems are already being used (and very
successfully), aimed at analysing existing court acts, based on input from one
participant, of course. Certainly, this may be the way to resolve disputes in the
future.  

But it will not be litigation in its classical form. Also, a mechanism needs to be
invented to create the most objective case file.  

In order to reduce the margin of judicial discretion as much as possible, it is

most effective to create an algorithm that motivates the parties to provide as much
evidence as possible, but at the same time avoids "cluttering" the case file with
documents that are not relevant to the subject matter of the dispute in order to
facilitate data analysis.  

It seems that the future automation of judicial proceedings should unify

procedural law. The algorithm described below is mostly suitable only for
economic litigation.

Below is an outline of one possible option (diagram №1): 

 1. At the initial stage the criteria of the conditional presumption "prima facie" -
provision of formal evidence (by the example of disputes on the collection of
debts under the loan agreement: evidence of the loan relationship between the
plaintiff and the defendant, evidence of the fact of transfer of funds) are
established.  

It would probably be more appropriate not to use the term "prima facie" in
relation to the presumption, but to require the presentation of the entire amount
of evidence which objectively, due to the specific nature of the legal relationship,
the plaintiff should have or the plaintiff should be aware of the existence of such
evidence and its whereabouts (thus allowing the plaintiff to effectively use his
rights to apply to the court for assistance in obtaining evidence). 

In other words, a "prima facie" presumption implies that the plaintiff bears all the
procedural risks of failing to produce evidence that either must be in his
possession or of which he should have known.  

If the plaintiff fails to produce the entirety of the evidence (taking into
account a request for assistance from the court), the claim will be dismissed.  

If the plaintiff has provided the full amount of evidence, including by

exercising the right to apply to the court for assistance in obtaining the evidence,
the burden of proof shall be shifted to the defendant. 

2. the defendant then has two procedural possibilities to object to the claim
(either one or both of them can be used):  

2.1. Objection to the authenticity of the evidence submitted by the plaintiff

(essentially a declaration that the evidence in the case has been tampered with).  

2.1.1. In such a case, if the defendant's objection contains evidence to disprove the
authenticity of documents (including by assisting the court in obtaining evidence
and appointing an expert examination), the plaintiff shall have the burden of proof
to disprove the defendant's objection.  Specific evidentiary criteria that can rebut
the plaintiff's evidence should be tailored to the particular category of disputes
based on the list of documents that the plaintiff provides when proving the prima
facie presumption (e.g. the results of an expert examination of the authenticity of
the defendant's signature).  

2.1.2.1. If the plaintiff's further explanation does not support the authenticity of
the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, a decision will be made to dismiss the claim.  

2.1.2.2. If the plaintiff's explanations with the evidence submitted by the plaintiff
(including by assisting the court in obtaining evidence and appointing an expert)
can confirm the authenticity of the documents originally submitted, then the
examination shall proceed to establish a "rebuttal of the presumption".   

If no arguments other than the objection as to the authenticity of the plaintiff's

documents are presented by the defendant, the action shall be allowed.   

2.2. Submission by the defendant of evidence to rebut the "prima facie"

presumption.   

The criteria for rebuttal of the prima facie presumption must be set in reverse to
the presumption (exemplified in disputes over recovery of debts under a loan
agreement: evidence to support repayment of the loan)  

If the evidence presented by the defendant does not rebut the presumption, the
action must be granted.  

2.2.1. If the evidence submitted by the defendant rebuts the presumption

(according to the criteria established for a particular category of dispute), the
plaintiff is invited to clarify the statement of claim, taking into account the
defendant's objection.   

If such a clarification duplicates the original statement of claim, a decision

shall be made dismissing the claim. 

2.2.2.1. if the revised statement of claim does not duplicate the original statement
of claim, the respondent shall be obliged to submit a revised statement of defence
in the light of the revised statement of claim. If the clarified statement of defence
duplicates the original statement of claim, the claim shall be allowed.  

2.2.2.2. If the objection does not duplicate the initial objection, the final positions
of the parties are automatically merged into a final issue. 

2.3. If the subject matter of the case is more suited to a particular practice (case
No 1) then, depending on which circumstance distinguishes case No 1 from the case
in question, a request for additional evidence shall be made to one of the parties; if
the party does not provide relevant evidence then the subject matter shall be
reviewed for consistency with case No 2 with an appropriate request for evidence.
If the evidence is provided, a decision shall be taken in accordance with Case 2.  

2.4. If the facts of the case do not comply with either Case No.1 or Case Po.2 then
the case shall be heard directly by the judge. 

The sole task of law is to create rules for human interaction that will facilitate
the deepest possible interaction, i.e. the ideal law should ensure the most effective
interaction between people under the existing objective conditions that do not
depend on law (crises, etc.).  

Therefore, it seems that a court decision in a case to which no known precedent

applies should govern the disputed relationship in a way that motivates parties acting
in good faith and reasonably to enter into a legal relationship without exposing
them to unreasonable legal risks.  

The following is an outline of a possible algorithm to minimise the personal

involvement of the judge in the case (diagram №2).

2.5. The first question to be answered is: which party should have foreseen the
circumstances giving rise to the dispute? (For example, the circumstances
surrounding the possible closure of a railway line, which made it impossible to
transport the goods, should objectively have been foreseen by the carrier, not the
customer).  
 2.6.1. If the circumstance could not in principle have been foreseen by either
party, the doctrine of frustration of contracts applies, the consequences of which
are applied by the judge.  

2.6.2. If the circumstance could have been foreseen by either party, could that
party technically have factored that circumstance into the terms of the contract?
(In other words, was it possible for a party to somehow insure performance
against the occurrence of such a circumstance).  

2.7.1. If not, the doctrine of frustration of contracts also applies, the

consequences of which are accepted by the judge.  

2.7.2. If yes, was such consideration economically feasible under the terms
(including price) of the contract?  

2.8.1. If no, judgment shall be rendered in favour of the party.  

2.8.2. If yes, judgment is rendered against the party.  

The algorithm has been designed to generalize the common law and continental
law institutions as much as possible.

Of course, the presented variants of the algorithm outline are only one of
many possible ways to organize automated production. Some of which, in one way
or another, are already in use in various jurisdictions.