A Short Survey of Viewing Large Language Models in Legal Aspect

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being adopted in the legal domain. However, despite their strong performance, LLMs are prone to generating incorrect or hallucinated outputs, raising serious concerns about their reliability in high-stakes domains such as law. Detecting the correctness of responses of LLM-based systems is therefore a critical challenge. In this work, we explore the potential of leveraging internal artifacts of LLM to detect the correctness of their predictions in legal-domain classification tasks. We develop approaches that utilize features derived from these internal artifacts to build downstream classifiers capable of identifying incorrect LLM outputs. We evaluate our approach on two representative legal classification tasks: bail decision prediction and statute violation prediction. Our experimental results demonstrate that LLMs' internal artifacts are reliable indicators for detecting incorrect predictions in legal classification tasks, and can be applied to enhance the reliability of LLM-based classification systems.

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable success in general-domain tasks, yet their direct application to the legal domain remains challenging due to hallucinated legal citations, incomplete knowledge coverage, and weak structured reasoning. To address these issues, we propose PoliLegalLM, a domain-specific large language model tailored for political and legal applications. Our approach adopts a unified training framework that integrates continued pretraining, progressive supervised fine-tuning, and preference-based reinforcement learning to jointly enhance legal knowledge grounding, task alignment, and reasoning capability. We construct a large-scale, high-quality legal corpus and design a structured post-training pipeline, enabling the model to effectively learn domain-specific knowledge and adapt to diverse legal tasks. We evaluate PoliLegalLM on three representative benchmarks, including LawBench, LexEval, and a real-world dataset, PoliLegal. Experimental results demonstrate that PoliLegalLM achieves strong and consistent performance, outperforming competitive models of similar scale and remaining highly competitive with significantly larger models, while achieving the best results on real-world legal scenarios. These results highlight the effectiveness of our training paradigm and the practical value of domain-specific LLMs for real-world legal applications.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are proposed as legal decision assistants, and even first-instance decision-makers, across a range of judicial and administrative contexts, it becomes essential to explore how they answer legal questions, and in particular the factors that lead them to decide difficult questions in one way or another. A specific feature of legal decisions is the need to respond to arguments advanced by contending parties. A legal decision-maker must be able to engage with, and respond to, including through being potentially persuaded by, arguments advanced by the parties. Conversely, they should not be unduly persuadable, influenced by a particularly compelling advocate to decide cases based on the skills of the advocates, rather than the merits of the case. We explore how frontier open- and closed-weights LLMs respond to legal arguments, reporting original experimental results examining how the quality of the advocate making those arguments affects the likelihood that a model will agree with a particular legal point of view, and exploring the factors driving these results. Our results have implications for the feasibility of adopting LLMs across legal and administrative settings.