Latest newsletter out
digitallegislation.substack.com/p/news-from-...
- testing AI "skills" for reading legislation
- free web course for legislative drafters
- capturing logic of multiple layers of definitions, qualifications & exclusions
- EU govts open-source coding systems for RaC
- Oz & NZ news
I see a lot of people here dunking on a software dev who thinks that law is code.
As a person who ought to know (grad degree in computational law), let me point out two things that can be true at the same time:
1. Laws are not code.
2. Interpretations of law can be encoded.
1/
Susan Haack, a leading epistemologist and philosopher of logic, passed away yesterday.
Sit ei terra levis
news.miami.edu/as/stories/2...
Our report (statesassembly.je/getmedia/ade... or osf.io/m4che) is out on our last 3 years of work -
* Logic visualiser
* definitions tool
* AI
* non-tech drafting guidance
* Docassemble mock-up
Plus background on legislative drafting, RaC, ADM & more.
Has a 4-page summary (or 1-page at osf.io/5ne3c)
A screen shot of a chat with ChatGPT 5.2 inside the GitHub CoPilot extension for VS Code, in which the agent is using a Blawx encoding to explain why a given output is expected in a given fact scenario that has to do with procurement rules in the Government. Ultimately, the agent replies "From the Blawx run of question id 59 ("is there a violation with regard to a contract") using facts that match your scenario, the reasoner produces a proof tree showing a violation because DMP Section 4.6 / 4.6.1 / 4.6.1.1 requires Treasury Board approval when the estimated value exceeds the entity's non-competitive basic contracting limit, and that approval must occur before the contract is entered into."
New release of §Blawx tonight, v2.0.2, that fixes a small bug with NLG in explanations.
Also, a blog post that illustrates how #RulesAsCode can be used in software development by exposing symbolic AI encodings to developers' agents over MCP. app.blawx.dev/content/usin...
#LegalTech
Blawx is officially no longer "pre-revenue"! 🎉
Big milestone!
But more excited to hear about lawyers having fun using it.
Did I make legal knowledge engineering fun for lawyers? Not really.
It was always fun.
Blawx just makes it easier to learn! 😅
#RulesAsCode #LegalTech
Very useful & interesting couple of days at LVI2025, Law via the Internet conf www.lvi2025.org/program/ - "Shaping the Future of Legal Accessibility: Improving access to law through legal info, tech & AI” in Sydney at AustLII (Australasian Legal Information Institute www.austlii.edu.au/about.html)
📢 We're recruiting! We're looking for a Legal Project Officer to join our team.
⏰Apply by Monday 24 November 2025.
More details 👇
ilpa.org.uk/legal-projec...
🙏 Please share widely 🙏
🔔 𝐆𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐭 𝐑𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐅𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐓𝐢𝐦𝐞: 𝐌𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐋𝐚𝐰𝐟𝐮𝐥 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬
📅 4, 6, 11 & 14 Nov | Zoom
4 webinars for decision-makers! In partnership with @legalactiongroup.bsky.social & @39essexchambers.bsky.social.
Book now: https://shorturl.pulse.ly/mltceu8krj
Very encouraging to see "Public sector automated decision-making" will be one of new projects at Law Commission (E&W)
lawcom.gov.uk/news/law-com...
We published Margaux McQuilton's pre-print report on ADM osf.io/a7jwc
We see logic-driven systems taking human decision-makers to the right questions
In which we bid farewell to Professor Michael Rush. A kind, generous and gentle man. More notes from @anyaso.bsky.social and I:
ukparliament.github.io/ontologies/m...
the professionalisation of legislative drafting (only 150 years or so in the UK) and the unlikely nature of any oversight.
Implied repeal is an argument of last resort. If made it indicates someone has no real arguments. Hard to identify the last time such an argument was successful.
This is the first time I have seen L4 running in the wild, which is exciting.
I have some thoughts...
Very sorry you see it that way. I can only repeat that I don't see what we're doing as in any way at all taking away from what you (or others) are doing - it isn't either/or. I do want benefits beyond better drafting - to me it seems sensible to push towards that on different fronts at the same time
I would like to have a call with you &/or Martin if you have some time, ideally before the RaC Guild - I'm sure it would be more useful than talking across each other on here. What do you reckon?
We are not trying to teach drafters any of the full systems - I will leave that to you (& Martin P) for Blawx, & the Legalese team for L4, & whoever for whatever. We are trying to do something different, which really doesn't clash with any of what anyone else is doing. We're all on the same side???
I am saying that to introduce many drafters, on their territory, to what this can do for drafting, it is a good idea to do that with propositional. We have not found anyone to do that for us, but the L4 guys were prepared to let us hobble their system and we leapt at that.
Seems like I am still not getting this across - I absolutely am not saying you have to use our approach to learn L4 - and I really am not interested in any point-scoring between Blawx, L4, Logical English, Catala or whoever.
I do have the interest, but many people need intermediate steps.
Also not sure what you mean on alternative tool - we both know no tool could automatically reliably convert real legislative text into code/logic, even just propositional. Getting drafters to analyse their text is a key purpose for us
For the next step I don’t necessarily mean flowcharts. Just a simple way to go from the text to something that captures something beyond propositional and can then show that something can be done with it. Stepping stones for some people, jump straight into learning full Blawx/L4/etc for others
By the way my next mad plan is to look into what would be the simplest minimum we could add to produce a marginally less hobbled (but still brazenly hobbled) version that takes us a minimum step beyond propositional into the shallowest & most drafter-friendly end of predicate. If that sinks so be it
Do bear in mind this is us jumping on one tool they had produced, and us asking them to help us hobble it back down to just propositional logic, for our purposes. I would love to persuade you (or Martin P) to help us do an equivalent with Blawx too - could you be open to discussing that?
We are also presenting this to drafters as worth the small effort partly because it improves drafting, by helping drafters to think yet more rigorously about what they are doing. Again this opens the door to seeing scope for further improvements in drafting too.
I honestly don’t think it will obscure anything. Visualising is an impactful way to get people started, & this starts from where legislative drafters are. Once you have them over that hill it is far easier for them to picture the potential benefits of a more sophisticated system.
I really don’t think it’s an either-or. I see this as part of helping to get more of one specific audience to start down a road that could then just as easily take them to Blawx as anywhere else. Will you be at RaC Guild on 3 Sept to see us? Maybe talk before?
A wee bank holiday treat for you guys. More week - well, fortnight - notes from @anyaso.bsky.social and I. In which we approached ramming speed, only to collide head-on with documentation buffers. Rescued in part by the kindness of strangers
ukparliament.github.io/ontologies/m...
Thanks Jason - the point of the propositional approach is to give legislative drafters, with no tech experience, an easy & familiar way in to seeing what we mean by capturing the logic and what that can deliver. So all your points are valid but we are trying to do something else
Here are some results from our work with the L4 team at SMU - getting legislative drafters to produce basic visualisations by showing how to make propositional logic versions of their drafts
#RulesAsCode
