1 See, e.g., William E. Boyd, Law in Computers and Computers in Law: A Lawyer's View of the State of the Art, 14 Ariz. L. Rev. 267 (1972).Google Scholar

2 Developments in the ability to put many electronic components on a single chip about one-tenth of an inch square have dramatically reduced the cost of computers. This technique, called large scale integration (LSI), has made it possible to put more than 20,000 individual components on a single chip. Thus, an entire computer can be fabricated on a single chip. Such computers are usually called microprocessors. See, e.g., Douglas A. Cassell, Putting the Micro into Perspective, Datamation, Aug. 1978, at 97–102; Rodnay Zaks, Microprocessors: From Chips to Systems (3d ed. Berkeley, Cal.: Sybex, Inc., 1980). See generally John P. Hays, Computer Architecture and Organization (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1978); V. Hamacher, Z Vranesic, & S. Zaky, Computer Organization (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1978). Similar but less dramatic advances have been made in programming techniques. The development of structured programming has increased the programmer's productivity considerably. See, e.g., F. T. Baker, Chief Programmer Team Management of Production Programming, IBM Sys. J. No. 1, 1972, at 56–73; id., System Quality Through Structured Programming, AFIPS Proceedings of the Fall Joint Computer Conference, vol. 41, pt. 1, at 339–43 (1972). See generally Glenford J. Meyers, Reliable Software Through Composite Design (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1975); Edward Yourdon & Larry L. Constantine, Structured Design: Fundamentals of a Discipline of Computer Program and System (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1980).Google Scholar

3 As recently as 1971 few legal professionals were actively exploring the interfaces between computers and law. Several, such as Layman Allen, Lee Loevinger, Roy Freed, and Reed Lawlor, have been active for some time. While there were efforts under way as long ago as 1959, when Modern Uses of Logic in Law (with which Layman Allen was involved) was first published, and the American Bar Association has published Jurimetrics Journal since 1968, the relatively small amount of interest in the subject is attested to by the fact that the American Bar Association Section of Science and Technology was not created until 1974.Google Scholar

4 See, e.g., Buchanan, Bruce G. & Headrick, Thomas E., Some Speculations About Artificial Intelligence and Legal Reasoning, 23 Stan. L. Rev. 40 (1970); McCarty, L. Thorne, Reflections on taxman: An Experiment in Artificial Intelligence and Legal Reasoning, 90 Harv. L. Rev. 837 (1977). Some interesting progress has already been made. See McCarty, , supra; Popp, Walter G. & Schlink, Bernhard, judith: A Computer Program to Advise Lawyers in Reasoning a Case, 15 Jurimetrics J. 303 (1975). An impressive, if somewhat less ambitious, program that would seem to be capable of producing practical results immediately has been written by Professor Robert Hellawell. See his A Computer Program for Legal Planning and Analysis: Taxation of Stock Redemptions, 80 Colum. L. Rev. 1363 (1980).Google Scholar

5 See, e.g., White, A Prototype for the Automated Office, Datamation, April 1977, at 83–90.Google Scholar

6 See, e.g., Colin Tapper, Computers and the Law 206–14 (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1973). See generally Robert P. Bigelow, ed., Computer Law Service Section 5–4.3 (Wilmette, Ill.: Callaghan & Co., 1980).Google Scholar

7 See, e.g., Sprowl, James A., Computer-assisted Legal Research—an Analysis of Full-Text Document Retrieval Systems, 1976 A.B.F. Res. J. 175.Google Scholar

8 See, e.g., id., Automating the Legal Reasoning Process: A Computer That Uses Regulations and Statutes to Draft Legal Documents, 1979 A.B.F. Res. J. 1. See also Daniel B. Felker, Document Design: A Review of the Relevant Research (Washington, D.C.: American Institutes for Research with Carnegie-Mellon, 1980).Google Scholar

9 The system on which the A-9 program was implemented is available for under $20,000. This system, which is described in more detail in part III, has many of the capabilities of a large computer system costing much more.Google Scholar

10 See, e.g., Reed Dickerson, The Fundamentals of Legal Drafting 3–4 (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1965).Google Scholar

11 Id. at 150.Google Scholar

12 See, e.g., Allen, Layman E., Symbolic Logic: A Razor-edged Tool for Drafting and Interpreting Legal Documents, 66 Yale L. J. 803 (1957). See generally Haggard, Thomas R., A Selective Bibliography on the Use of Logic in Law, 20 Jurimetrics J. 102 (1979).Google Scholar

13 The history of the role of forms and form books in American jurisprudence is carefully traced in David Mellinkoff, The Language of the Law 234–82 (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1963).Google Scholar

14 See, e.g., Rudolf Flesch, How to Write Plain English (New York: Harper & Row, 1979); Mellinkoff, supra note 13, at 234–82; Richard C. Wydick, Plain English for Lawyers (Durham, N.C.: Carolina Academic Press, 1979).Google Scholar

15 There are some notable exceptions. A UCC financing statement is one. However, even as to it the blank filling is more than a mechanical process. Properly describing the collateral, for example, is a process requiring no small amount of skill. See James J. White & Robert S. Summers, Handbook of the Law Under the Uniform Commercial Code 961–64 (2d ed. St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co., 1980).Google Scholar

16 James Richardson, Wynnewood, Pa., a solo practitioner, uses a Lextron VT-1102 word processor to produce all the documents needed in his practice. He does not have a secretary. Occasionally he hires temporary help to enter the contents of long documents into the word processor. Word Processor Is Legal Secretary in One-Man Law Firm, The Office, Feb. 1979, at 31–36.Google Scholar

17 The printer that is a part of the LMS system (see infra, sec. IIIA) is typical of those printers used in word processing applications. It prints at about 55 characters per second, very fast compared with a human typist but slow compared with computer printers, some of which can print more than 2,000 lines per minute.Google Scholar

18 It may be that there technically is no such thing as a “simple” legal document, will or otherwise, but there are documents of varying complexity.Google Scholar

19 Once again, we recognize that word processors may be “computerized” to the point that they have some of the capabilities necessary to overcome this basic problem. But in our judgment, when this point is reached the device ceases to be a word processor within the meaning generally given to that description. See note 20 supra.Google Scholar

20 Word processors typically are not programmed in the sense that a computer is. They rely on the human user to decide, for example, whether to include a paragraph or not and how many times a clause should be repeated. There is, however, an unclear line between the more powerful word processors and minicomputers. We are using “word processor” here to mean those devices that are somewhat less powerful than minicomputers. See, e.g., A Rosen & R. Frelden, Word Processing (Engle-wood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1977) 84–97; Loftin, Richard, What Can Word Processing Do for You? Odyssey 2001 Does It All, 65 A.B.A.J. 1650 (1979).Google Scholar

21 Many of the questions are “conditional,” that is, whether or not they are asked depends on the answers given to previous questions.Google Scholar

22 The LMS system (see infra, sec. IIIA), as it is typically employed, exemplifies the two-phase system just presented.Google Scholar

23 See Sprowl, supra note 8.Google Scholar

24 Id. at 9, 14–15. For a formal description of the language see James A. Sprowl, A Formal Description of “ABF“: A Computer Language for the Legal Profession (to be published).Google Scholar

25 Sprowl, supra note 8, at 9, 15.Google Scholar

26 Id. at 17–35.Google Scholar

27 Id. at 16.Google Scholar

28 Id. at 17–35.Google Scholar

29 Researchers at Lewis and Clark in Portland, Oregon, are attempting to transfer the ABF processor to the Lewis and Clark computer system by rewriting the ABF interpreter in PASCAL.Google Scholar

30 There is only one link between the user and the computer during use of a time-shared computer. Therefore, either the question and answer dialogue or the document can be transmitted.Google Scholar

31 The fact that we could obtain ready access to the small system we used made it ideal for experimentation. Furthermore, using a small system with only limited facilities forced us to determine what was essential and what was not.Google Scholar

32 See Appendix A.Google Scholar

33 See note 9 supra.Google Scholar

34 See text at note 17 supra.Google Scholar

35 See note 17 supra.Google Scholar

36 An alternative to having the document printed as it is being assembled would be to have a second CRT terminal connected to the computer and use that to display and edit the document as it is being prepared.Google Scholar

37 See note 18 supra.Google Scholar

38 Contrast the situation that obtains when a time-shared computer system is involved. See text and note supra at note 30.Google Scholar

39 E.g., the procedure employed in obtaining a description of the collateral allows the user to add “other distinguishing characteristics.”.Google Scholar

40 E.g., the complex task of constructing a paragraph to describe the collateral is done in a separate file.Google Scholar

41 UCC§ 9–203.Google Scholar

42 UCC§§ 9–302(1), 9–402. See generally White & Summers, supra note 15, at 918–19.Google Scholar

43 UCC§§ 9–401, 9–402.Google Scholar

44 When the A-9 program is run to prepare a security agreement it gathers information needed for financing statements and also to tell the user where such statements must be filed under UCC§ 9–401.Google Scholar

45 E.g., in most jurisdictions financing statements expire after five years, and a continuation statement must be filed to assure continuing perfection, UCC§ 9–403. The A-9 program may be made to generate such statements.Google Scholar

46 The UCC's introduction of the concept of an Article 9 Security Interest makes differences in the kind of collateral involved less important than was true under the prior law. See Official Comment to § 9–101. But such differences cannot be ignored. See White & Summers, supra note 15, at 943–46.Google Scholar

47 Goods are classified as consumer goods, farm products, inventory, and equipment, UCC§ 9–109.Google Scholar

48 The definitions are as follows:Google Scholar

8 9–109 CIasslflcrtlon of Goods; “Consumer Goods”: “Equipment”; “Farm Products”; “Inventory”. Goods are Google Scholar

9-109 Classification of Goods; “Consumer Goods”; “Equipment”; “Farm Products”; “Inventory”. Goods are. (1) “consumer goods” if they are used or bought for use primarily for personal, family or household purposes;. (2) “equipment” if they are used or bought for use primarily in business (including farming or a profession) or by a debtor who is a non-profit organization or a governmental subdivision or agency or if the goods are not included in the definitions of inventory, farm products or consumer goods;. (3) “farm products” if they are crops or livestock or supplies used or produced in farming operations or if they are products of crops or livestock in their unmanufactured states (such as ginned cotton, wool-cup, maple syrup, milk and eggs), and if they are in the possession of a debtor engaged in raising, fattening, grazing or other farming operations. If goods are farm products they are neither equipment nor inventory;. (4) “inventory” if they are held by a person who holds them for sale or lease or to be furnished under contracts of service or if he has so furnished them, or if they are raw materials, work in process or materials used or consumed in a business. Inventory of a person is not to be classified as his equipment.Google Scholar

49 UCC§ 9–204(2) provides: “No security interest attaches under an after-acquired property clause to consumer goods other than accessions (Section 9–314) when given as additional security unless the debtor acquires rights in them within 10 days after the secured party gives value.”.Google Scholar

50 See, e.g., Community Bank v. Jones, 22 ucc Rep. Serv. 168 (Or. 1977).Google Scholar

51 Because of the many similarities between equipment and consumer goods as collateral, they are often treated together in form books. See, e.g., Frederick M. Hart & William F. Willier, Forms and Procedures Under the Uniform Commercial Code 9–81 to 9–152 (New York: Matthew Bender, 1963).Google Scholar

52 It is not unknown for a small business owner to offer personal as well as business property as collateral.Google Scholar

53 See text and notes supra at notes 48–49.Google Scholar

54 Such help could include, e.g., a list of suggested descriptions for various types of collateral.Google Scholar

55 A method for storing such material so as to maximize its utility is discussed below.Google Scholar

56 See, e.g., Carole Diane Hafner, An Information Retrieval System Based on a Computer Model of Legal Knowledge (Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, 1978); Stamper, R. K., The legol 1: Prototype System and Language, 20 Computer J. 102 (1977). See generally J. Fry & E. Sibley, Evolution of Data Base Management Systems, Computing Surveys, Mar. 1976, at 7–42; J. Martin, Computer Data Base Organization (2d ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1977); C. J. Date, An Introduction to Database Systems (2d ed. Reading, Mass.: Addison Wesley Publishing Co., 1977).Google Scholar

57 Thus, § 9–109 and decisions and commentary pertaining to classifying goods would be stored and retrieved in connection with queries regarding the classification of collateral and also cross-referenced to the place for filing and other aspects of the transaction affected by the classification of goods.Google Scholar

58 Some important matters such as the meaning of default are left to the parties to define. See White & Summers, supra note 17, at 1085–86. The user could be alerted to this important fact in connection with the paragraph defining default.Google Scholar

59 See Allen, supra note 12; Allen, Layman E. & Engholm, C. Rudy, Normalized Legal ‘Drafting and the Query Method, 29 J. Legal Educ. 380 (1978). Allen's work played a central role in the development of the ABF processor. See Sprowl, supra note 8, at 10–11.Google Scholar

60 See materials cited in note 60 supra.Google Scholar

61 See Sprowl, supra note 8, at 23–25. The LMS document development program does not presently include an “otherwise” or “else” capability. However, the same effect can be achieved by using multiple conditional statements. Therefore, the absence of an “otherwise” capability did not present a serious obstacle to the development of the A-9 program.Google Scholar

62 The basic idea for such a filing system was suggested some time ago. See Layman E. Allen, Sketch of a Proposed Semi-automatic Hierarchial, Open-ended Storage and Retrieval System for Statute-oriented Literature, Proceedings of the International Federation for Documentation (Washington, D.C., 1965).Google Scholar

63 See note 56 supra.Google Scholar

64 The information might not even be stored in the data base but might be derived from fundamental data stored in the data base using procedures specified by the document developer. A document developer using a system such as the one proposed here would be able to take advantage of information previously obtained for some other purpose and placed in the data base. These multiple uses of data from the data base would not need to be planned for at the time the first document was designed, but the additional needs could be accommodated as required.Google Scholar

65 See note 46 supra.Google Scholar

66 Sales contracts customarily present cost information in such a way as to show the mathematical relationships (or progression) that produce the “bottom line” figures. See, e.g., Hart & Willier, supra note 51, at 9–107.Google Scholar

67 UCC§ 9–401 (1)(a) (2d alternative).Google Scholar

68 See White & Summers, supra note 15, at 892–94, 926–33.Google Scholar

69 UCC§§ 9–105, 9–305. See generally Ray D. Henson, Handbook on Secured Transactions Under the Uniform Commercial Code 102–06, 108–10 (2d ed. St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co., 1979).Google Scholar

70 UCC§ 9–105(b). See generally White & Summers, supra note 15, at 892–94, 926–36.Google Scholar

71 UCC§ 9–106. See generally White & Summers, supra note 15, at 892–94, 926–36.Google Scholar

72 See text and notes supra at note 49.Google Scholar

73 E.g., UCC§ 2–302.Google Scholar

74 See Boyd, William E., Representing Consumers—the Uniform Commercial Code and Beyond, 9 Ariz. L. Rev. 372 (1968).Google Scholar

75 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. (1976 Supp. III 1979), as amended by Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96–221, 94 Stat. 132. See generally William E. Boyd, The Truth-in-Lending Simplified and Reform Act—a Much Needed Revision Whose Time Has Finally Come, 23 Ariz. L. Rev.—(1981; forthcoming).Google Scholar

76 Id. at —.Google Scholar

77 See text supra at notes 42–46.Google Scholar

78 One of the authors has written a revision of the A-9 program using PASCAL. This rewritten version should facilitate the production of security agreements on other computer systems, both large and small.Google Scholar