Abstract

This article is the first attempt to justify the "next" milestone in the development of legal realism: hyperrealism. The implications of digitalization have become the new fuel for the legal realist's jurisprudence prediction theory, that is, empirical research to predict the judge's or the court's decision. Indeed, that was impossible for American realists in the early twentieth century, and all the attempts failed. Therefore, tools such as Judicial Analytics allow us to prove that personal motives and prejudices affect a dispute's resolution. Based on a systemic, comparative, and interdisciplinary analysis that intermingles legal theory, data analytics and digital technologies, the article substantiates the concept of hyperrealism itself. It evaluates the advantages and disadvantages of its primary tool—judicial analytics. The authors state the necessity of creating regulatory mechanisms of "curbing" to use them to improve justice and minimize the risk of rights violations. They propose using tools of expert evaluation, standardization, and ethical regulation of forensic analysis.