Análise e Ranqueamento da Rede de Advogados induzida por Processos Judiciais Trabalhistas

• Leonardo Filipe Rodrigues Ribeiro Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
• Daniel R. Figueiredo Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
• Paulo Roberto Nascimento Federal University of Rio de Janeiro

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5753/brasnam.2016.6441

Abstract

Who are the most important lawyers in the labor court of Rio de Janeiro state? Using data from tens of thousands of cases, we created a network of lawyers, directed and weighted, in order to answer that and some other questions. An empirical evaluation indicates that the structure of the network has very commonly features founded in other real social networks. Metrics as closeness, betweenness, vertex strength and pagerank were used to perform ranking of its vertices and identifying the main lawyers of the network. Lastly, we found information about how lawyers are related to each other in the different trials in which they worked. The main objective of this work is to understand how labor lawyers are connected and what their importance is in the community in which they work.

Keywords: Social Network Analysis, Ranking, Influence

References

Patrícia Ribeiro de Azevedo e Kalina Valéria Bastos Pedroza. Procedimento Sumaríssimo: aspectos polêmicos. Acessado em 11/03/2016. URL: http://www.webartigos.com/artigos/procedimento-sumarissimotrabalhista-aspectos-polemicos/90877/.

A. Barrat et al. “The architecture of complex weighted networks”. Em: Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 101 (2004), pp. 3747–3752.

Chambers e Partners. Chambers Latin America 2016. Acessado em 18/03/2016. URL: http://www.chambersandpartners.com/guide/latin-america/9.

Análise Editora. Advocacia 500-2014. Acessado em 16/12/2015. URL: http://www.analise.com/site/publicacoes/exibe/2/analiseadvocacia-500.

Daniel Ratton Figueiredo. “Introdução a Redes Complexas”. Em: Atualizações em Informática 2011. Ed. por Alberto Ferreira de Souza e Wagner Meira Jr. PUC-Rio, 2011. Cap. 7, pp. 303–358.

James H. Fowler et al. Network Analysis and the Law: Measuring the Legal Importance of Precedents at the U.S. Supreme Court. 2007.

Steven B. Andrews Herminia Ibarra. “Power, Social Influence, and Sense Making: Effects of Network Centrality and Proximity on Employee Perceptions”. Em: Administrative Science Quarterly 38.2 (1993), pp. 277–303. ISSN: 00018392.

Péterson Sampaio Procópio Júnior et al. “Time-aware Ranking in Sport Social Networks”. Em: Journal of Information and Data Management (2012).

Conselho Nacional de Justiça. Resolução Nº 125 de 29/11/2010. Acessado em 11/03/2016. URL: http://www.cnj.jus.br/busca-atos-adm?documento=2579.

LACCA. Latin Lawyer 250. Acessado em 18/03/2016. URL: http://latinlawyer.com/ll250/.

Jocélia Lopes. Termos Judiciais. Acessado em 16/12/2015. URL: http://www.jocelialopesadvocacia.com.br/termos.html.

M. E. J. Newman. “The structure of scientific collaboration networks”. Em: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98.2 (2001), pp. 404–409.

Mark E.J. Newman. “Complex Networks”. Em: ed. por Eli Ben-Naim, Hans Frauenfelder e Zoltan Toroczkai. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2004. Cap. Who Is the Best Connected Scientist? A Study of Scientific Coauthorship Networks, pp. 337–370.

Lawrence Page et al. The PageRank Citation Ranking: Bringing Order to the Web. Technical Report 1999-66. Previous number = SIDL-WP-1999-0120. Stanford InfoLab, nov. de 1999.

Quem é protecionista é a legislação, não a Justiça do Trabalho, dizem advogados. http://www.conjur.com.br/2015-set-28/protetoratrabalhador-legislacao-nao-justica. Acessado em 16/12/2015.

Filippo Radicchi. “Who Is the Best Player Ever? A Complex Network Analysis of the History of Professional Tennis”. Em: PLoS ONE 6.2 (fev. de 2011), e17249.