STRONG – Structure Controllable Legal Opinion Summary Generation

We propose an approach for the structure controllable summarization of long legal opinions that considers the argument structure of the document. Our approach involves using predicted argument role information to guide the model in generating coherent summaries that follow a provided structure pattern. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach on a dataset of legal opinions and show that it outperforms several strong baselines with respect to ROUGE, BERTScore, and structure similarity.

ation baselines. We explore structure control in  re-implemented SentBS baseline (rows 3 vs. 1). 164 We also explored the impact of increasing the max-165 imum output length to 512 tokens, based on the 166 observation that oracle summaries tended to be 167 longer (Table 1). Similar trends were seen when 168 the maximum output length is increased to 512 to-169 kens (rows 5 vs. 4), as well as when all analyses are 170 repated using the 2,723 silver set (rows 6-8, 9-10).

171
This illustrates that the target structure information 172 helps STRONG generate higher-quality summaries.     with STRONG compared to prior structure-control 247 and no-structure baselines.
248 6 We provide the evaluation details in Appendix D.    to measure the structure-similarity between a sys-576 tem output summary and a given oracle summary 577 with the oracle structure prompt. In our actual im-578 plementation, the similarity score is computed by where the edit distance is computed as the Leven-

581
shtein Distance, with equal penalties for replace, 582 insert, and delete operations. We report the aver-

STRONG -512
This is very clear. Using the defendant's full name might be a privacy problem. I also wonder if there's a copyright problem with using the subject classification system at the start of the summary. It looks like it's from the Law Society of Saskatchewan. Model Generated Summary

Reference
The appellant was convicted of indecent assault against two young girls. He appealed on five grounds related to a substantial conflict in the evidence. Dismissing the appeal, that there was no error on the part of the trial judge in weighing the evidence.

NoStructure max
The appellant was convicted of two counts of indecent assault against two girls, aged 13 and 16. He was sentenced to nine months imprisonment, to be followed by two years probation. The appellant appealed.Dismissing the appeal, that there was no error on the part of the trial judge in conducting the trial or in weighing the evidence. After carefully reviewing the evidence, the verdict was not unreasonable or not supported by the evidence and the appeal was dismissed.

NoStructure controlled
The appellant was convicted of two counts of indecent assault against two girls, aged 13 and 17, respectively. He was sentenced to nine months imprisonment with respect to the first assault, followed by two years probation. The appellant appealed.Dismissing the appeal, that there was no error on the part of the trial judge in conducting the trial or in weighing the evidence. ...... There was a substantial conflict in the evidence as to the appellant's guilt, and he had been sentenced to 9 months imprisonment for the assault on the complainant, to

STRONG max
The appellant was convicted of two counts of indecent assault against two young girls. He was sentenced to nine months imprisonment with respect to the first assault, to be followed by two years probation, and one month consecutive for the second assault. The appellant appealed.Dismissing the appeal, that there was no error on the part of the trial judge in conducting the trial or in weighing the evidence. After carefully reviewing the evidence, the court could not say that the verdict was unreasonable or not supported by the evidence and the appeal was dismissed.

STRONG controlled
The appellant was convicted of two counts of indecent assault against two girls. He was sentenced to nine months imprisonment with respect to the first count and two years probation on the second count. The appellant appealed both convictions.Dismissing the appeal, that there was no error on the part of the trial judge in conducting the trial or in weighing the evidence. ...... as the evidence did not support the appellant's contention that the assault was committed in bad faith and that the appellant had committed the second offence in good faith and in   At issue was the interim custody of the child and child support. HELD: Interim custody was given to the petitioner with access to the respondent. The respondent was ordered to pay interim child support in the amount of $193 per month. On an interim custody application, the Court must take into account the status quo.

Issue | Conclusion | Conclusion | Reason
At issue was the interim custody of the child and child support. The parties began cohabitating in May 1998 and separated in April 2000.HELD: The petitioner was awarded interim custody with reasonable access including every second weekend, reasonable telephone access and reasonable access during holiday periods. Both parents were ordered to complete the Parenting After Separation course. There was an unhealthy degree of constant bickering.

Variant 1: Issue | Conclusion | Reason | Reason | Reason
The petitioner was awarded interim custody with reasonable access including every second weekend, reasonable telephone access and reasonable access during holiday periods. Both parents were ordered to complete the Parenting After Separation course. The parties raised in their material the issue of each other's lack of cooperation and communication. While the Court was not in position to decide whether the accusations of each party were substantiated, it could say with relative certainty that there was an unhealthy degree of constant bickering. It was evident that as long as the parties work on establishing better communication, the child would benefit from contact with both parents with minimal disruption.
Variant 2: Conclusion | Issue | Issue | Reason | Reason Interim custody of the child was awarded to the mother. The father was ordered to pay interim child support of $193 per month. Both parents were ordered to complete the Parenting After Separation course.HELD: The mother was awarded interim custody with reasonable access including every second weekend, reasonable telephone access and reasonable access during holiday periods. Interim child support was ordered in the amount of $125 per month and the father was to pay his proportionate share of childcare costs. There was an unhealthy degree of constant bickering. It was evident that as long as the parties worked on establishing better communication, the child would benefit from contact with both parents with minimal disruption.

ORACLE
Statutes -Interpretation -Limitation of Civil Rights Act, Section 2 The plaintiff bank applied by notice of application for a deficiency judgment against the defendant pertaining to the non-purchase money portion of the outstanding indebtedness to the plaintiff pursuant to her mortgage and to some other costs related to the mortgage. The original mortgage executed by the plaintiff was for $191,000 of which $176,000 was advanced to purchase her condominium and $15,000, eight per cent of the total, was advanced for other purchases. The property sold for $156,000 pursuant to a judicial sale. The sale proceeds were distributed to pay outstanding property taxes, commission, and the principal and interest due under the mortgage in the amount of $141,945 and the net sale proceeds were to be distributed pro rata. As at November 1, 2017, the principal and interest owing on the non-purchase money portion of the mortgage was $21,250. The plaintiff requested judgment for the deficiency in the amount of $9,900 with interest to the date of judgment. It claimed it was entitled to solicitor-client costs and other costs accrued by it under the mortgage. The issue was whether such costs should be subject to the pro rata calculation for the nonpurchase portion of the mortgage, that is, 8 percent of the total costs incurred. HELD: The application was granted. The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to a deficiency judgment for principal and interest owed under the mortgage in the amount requested. It was also entitled to judgment against the mortgagee for eight percent of the solicitor-client costs, condominium fees and property management charges.

SentBS
Statutes -Interpretation -Condominium Property Act, 1993, Section 63 The plaintiff bank applied by notice of application for a deficiency judgment against the defendant, Partridge, pertaining to the nonpurchase money portion of the outstanding indebtedness to the plaintiff pursuant to her mortgage. Partridge had originally executed a mortgage for $191,000, of which $176,000 was advanced to purchase her condominium unit and $15,000 for other purchases. The non-Purchase money amount of the loan advanced and secured by the mortgage was 8RBC applied for solicitor-client costs and other costs accrued by RBC under the mortgage. The issue was whether the pro rata distribution applied solely to the indebtedness of principal and accrued interest, or applied to all costs of outstanding mortgage, including solicitor and client costs permitted under the mortgages. In its application, RBC had calculated the proceeds from the judicial sale that must be distributed pro ratus between the purchase money and non-paid balances owing, resulting in the deficiency of principal. For the deficiency amount to be set at the rate of 2.

NoStructure -256
The petitioner was awarded interim custody with reasonable access including every second weekend, reasonable telephone access and reasonable access during holiday periods. Both parents were ordered to complete the Parenting After Separation course. The parties raised in their material the issue of each other's lack of cooperation and communication. While the Court was not in position to decide whether the accusations of each party were substantiated, it could say with relative certainty that there was an unhealthy degree of constant bickering. It was evident that as long as the parties work on establishing better communication, the child would benefit from contact with both parents with minimal disruption.

STRONG -256
Mortgage -Foreclosure -Determination of InterestThe plaintiff bank applied by notice of application for a deficiency judgment against the defendant, Partridge, pertaining to the non-purchase money portion of the outstanding indebtedness to it pursuant to her mortgage. The plaintiff also applied to have its lawyers' costs assessed on solicitor-client basis. Partridge had originally executed a mortgage for $191,000, of which $176,000 was advanced to purchase her condominium unit and $15,000 for other purchases. Thus, the mortgage was 8 percent of the total mortgage.HELD: The plaintiff's application was granted and the plaintiff was granted judgment against Partridge in the amount of $9,901.23 with interest from November 1, 2017, to the date of judgment at the rate of 2.79 per cent per annum. It was entitled to solicitor and other costs accrued by the plaintiff under its mortgage.

NoStructure -512
Mortgages -Foreclosure -DischargeThe plaintiff applied by notice of application for a deficiency judgment against the defendant pertaining to the non-purchase money portion of the outstanding indebtedness to the plaintiff pursuant to her mortgage. The plaintiff also applied to have its lawyers' costs assessed on solicitor-client basis.HELD: The plaintiff was granted judgment in the amount of $9,901.23 with interest from November 1, 2017 to the date of judgment at the rate of 2.79 per cent per annum for the deficiency of principal and interest owed under the mortgage.

STRONG -512
Mortgage -Foreclosure -Pro RataDebtor and Creditor -Mortgage -Non-purchase MoneyThe plaintiff, Royal Bank of Canada, applied by notice of application for a deficiency judgment against the defendant, Doreen Pearl Partridge, pertaining to the non-payment of outstanding indebtedness to the plaintiff pursuant to her mortgage. The property sold pursuant to an Order Nisi for Sale by Real Estate Listing for $156,000 was distributed to pay outstanding property taxes, real estate commission and the principal and interest due under the mortgage in the sum of $141,945.36. At issue was whether the pro rata distribution applied solely to the indebtedness of principal and accrued interest, or applied to all costs of the outstanding mortgage, including solicitor-client costs permitted under it. Partridge had originally executed a mortgage for $191,000 of which $176,000 advanced to purchase her condominium unit and $15,000 for other purchases. Thus, the mortgage was 8 percent of the total mortgage.HELD: The plaintiff was granted judgment against Partridge in the amount of $9,901.23 with interest from November 1, 2017 to the date of judgment at the rate of 2.79 per cent per annum. It was entitled to solicitor and client costs and other costs accrued by the plaintiff under its mortgage, that is, 8 per cent of its total outstanding mortgage costs incurred. Section 63 of The Condominium Property Act, 1993 allows the condominium corporation to register a lien against the title of the unit for unpaid contributions to the common expense fund or the reserve fund. Secondly, the plaintiff claimed $1,461.92 for its payment of property management charges for securing and caring for the property, appraisal fee and utilities. These charges were permitted by s. 8(1) of the Limitation of Civil Rights Act (LCRA) and any inspections and administration fees had not been claimed by RBC. Further, the property management charge was recoverable under the terms of the mortgage.