Replies: 5 comments 3 replies
-
|
Some jerk named Freeman made a reporter in Mississippi in the 1840's, but I am undeterred:
Happily, nobody abbreviates it "Free" or "FREE". |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
A friend suggests |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I think we're asking the wrong question: what should be the name of yet-another-proprietary-citation-system? If we name everything uniformly, irrespective of its jurisdiction, we're just duplicating LEXIS and WL. Instead, the beauty of 2025-NMSC-012 is that, in just about the shortest amount of characters possible, I only need to look at it to know what year the opinion is (2025) and what court it is (New Mexico Supreme Court). They're one of the smart courts that has solved this problem. They don't need yet another citation and we shouldn't give them one. Instead, the right thing to do is to make every other court follow their example, and the best way to do that, is to just start using the format that the court could adopt themselves if they wanted to do so. Alabama hasn't adopted neutral citations yet, but that doesn't mean we can't call the first opinion their Supreme Court releases in 2025 something like "2025-ALSC-1". We just start calling it that and eventually they adopt it too. This means we need a unique identifier for every court that hasn't already adopted one. But guess what?! We (basically) already have that. We had to come up with unique identifiers for each of our scrapers in Juriscraper and we used them in the filenames. So, the Alabama Supreme Court scraper is called "ala.py" which gives us the name of its neutral citation: "2025 ALA 1". We could certainly review some of the decisions we made on these and shorten some of them, but, in general, this approach preserves the main beauty of a neutral citation: you can tell just by looking at it what court you're talking about. 2025 CL 1 or 2025 FREE 1 will never do that. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I think missing from the discussion is, which system is optimized for AI? I think the days of humans using citations to track knowledge-objects are limited. Natural Language retrieval using AI systems is going to become the defacto standard. Case law is essentially a stored computation result; the legal system is a system of applying rules and rational analysis; a computation. It has an input, and an output. It's subject to errors that get introduced by imperfect humans. It is a flawed corpus, but one we have invested our computational resources in producing so that we can optimize larger systems (society as a whole; rule of law). AI will shake the legal system to it's foundations by providing a more consistent, less prejudicial application of rational analysis. I expect the utility of case law to the application of law is going to become challenged by the capacity of AI to apply rational analysis to large corpus's of case data. I think what people are missing, not comprehending, is AI will be expert in multiple domains. It won't just replace the lawyer, but the doctor, the engineer, the programmer. It's judgment will surpass that of expert witnesses and legal professionals. We will likely see case law get overturned because of expert AI analysis demonstrating how applying the law in the manner it had been applied in the past, causes a serious harm to society. So, I believe it's important that we should be asking what will best serve the AI systems that we will rely upon. What gets implemented shouldn't be down to media exposure, or which one we prefer, or other subjective measures. We should use rational analysis to model what the future is likely to be, and build to prepare for it. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
With this tab opened, I asked Gemini 3 Pro Preview in Chrome: "As an AI agent, what do you think? What would you advise?" It Answered: Based on the discussion thread and the specific context regarding AI optimization raised by The Core AnalysisThe comment by For an AI, a citation is not just a lookup tool; it is a unique identifier (UID) for ground truth.
My AdviceIf the goal is to build a system optimized for the future of AI legal analysis, do not prioritize branding ( 1. Adopt the "Juriscraper" Style (Structured Neutral Citations)
2. Avoid Generic Keywords
3. The "AI-Ready" Format
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.

Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
This idea comes up over and over again and I've resisted for years because who wants another digital citation?
My resistance ends now, and I am ready to cast my lot with the advocates of these citations. Here's why I think it's time:
We're just bigger now.
When we were smaller, it looked like hubris. Who is this weird organization that thinks it gets to add citations to things? Well, we're CourtListener, referenced by the library of congress and server to half a million people each week.
We have more of the data.
It's easier now not to miss a case and to have to give it an out of sequence citation when we add it years later.
Peter Martin, God of Citations, supports it.
He sent me an old paper he wrote, which I've only had time to skim so far. The gist though is that, as he puts it:
Others keep bringing it up.
When CL was new, this was a wild idea and I dismissed it. Now that others are asking for it, I think it's time.
I actually think this is pretty easy. Here's what I think we need to do:
Make an atomic counter for each year, starting at the number 1. Use it to generate citations for everything we import in the order we import it.
Make citations for all existing case law we have using atomic counters.
Make our citations work in the citation lookup, eyecite, and elsewhere.
Document the concept in a blog post, on CourtListener, on the neutral citation page, and elsewhere.
The one question is which citation format to use:
CL— people might readily connect this with CourtListener, which is good.FREE— bold, gets the point across, and is educational about our mission and the purpose of the citations themselves. Talk about branding. In our URL.FLP— gets people back to the org itself and maybe that'll drive support for us.FREELAW— long but clearer thanFLPand has some of the advocacy angle ofFREE. It's also our URL, which is sort of like how Java namespaces thing (though they're weirdos).I lean towards
FREE. It's the kind of on-brand thing only we can do, and it'll stand out like hell. It could help adoption, and, if nothing else, it makes our point very loudly.My second vote is for
FLP. It's more serious, which lawyers like, but 99% of people, even those that use CourtListener, don't know what Free Law Project is, much less FLP.FREELAWis fun, but it's kind of long and it's a bit preachy. Some might not go for it, but everybody likes freedom.CLcould work, but doesn't impose any advocacy. Missed opportunity.Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions