Much of the time spent by lawyers in searching through digests and textbooks for law reports could be saved by the use of a computerised system of case retrieval. To devise such a system which could be operated efficiently and economically would not be difficult, although there are a number of problems. The main obstacle to the introduction and development of such a system and the commencement of the necessary research programme leading to its operation is financial. It is thought that the cost burden of building up a memory for a computer to create a backlog of old cases for retrieval could be offset by the expedient of making the creation of the memory a teaching task and involving students in the performance of this function. In this task students would not only be doing something beneficial for the profession but would in addition give themselves practice in a process which is indispensible to any lawyer, that of classifying issues according to accepted jurisprudential patterns and perhaps widening the field of legal knowledge by the invention of new sub-classifications.

Some objections to the use of computers in this field would, it is expected, stem from arguments based on the traditional dislike of lawyers to new and untried measures and strict adherence to the “old and trusted” manual searching which through experience has been proved to be the least fallible. This is of course understandable, but the need to accept the challenge of a new age bringing into operation a computerised system of case retrieval is very real. The wealth of knowledge within the profession could be adapted to accommodate and to adjust to such a system. It is well recognised within the legal profession that some attempt should be made to “modernise” legal method. It is equally well appreciated that a system which has effectively worked for over 700 years, changing many times to reflect the customs of the community, is not easily improved. Change for the sake of change may be commercially expedient and lawyers are used to such expediencies. Justice, however, demands that the litigant should be protected from changes in technique introduced solely for the purpose of showing conformity with technological progress.

Seemingly, therefore, the use of computers should be limited to three main areas: 1. Legal teaching. 2. Case search. 3. Analysis.

The latter two areas are necessary in order to save time for the busy legal practitioner, who must be at a grave disadvantage (as also is the litigant) when (as he is today) overwhelmed by the enormous quantity of case law and litigation. The consideration of this problem alone leads to a number of quite fascinating speculations. In the research to which this article relates attempts have been made to produce a model which could be used in experiments in this field.