I run a startup that analyzed litigation and judicial opinions. We can figure out what arguments are made, which were persuasive to the judge, which judges conf

I run a startup that analyzed litigation and judicial opinions. We can figure out what arguments are made, which were persuasive to the judge, which judges conform to the mean and which are outliers. The long term potential is to make justice less expensive by being able to evaluate cases more cost effectively. It can also potentially identify judges that are outside of the norm. I don't see a problem with this as long as the system is just identifying what is successful and normal. However, if judges themselves start using it and adjust their decisions, there is potential for it to create feedback loops that can move the norm into towards something that is not necessarily just. So this system can be used for good as long as there remains an independent check on it (i.e., independent judges). This concern is not hypothetical. Today, judges are already using tools that calculate average prison times for offenders based on previous rulings. That should not be allowed as it creates feedback loops and bakes in earlier biases. However, the public should be able to use those tools to evaluate their legal position.