Legal-DC: Benchmarking Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Legal Documents

We introduce Legal RAG Bench, a benchmark and evaluation methodology for assessing the end-to-end performance of legal RAG systems. As a benchmark, Legal RAG Bench consists of 4,876 passages from the Victorian Criminal Charge Book alongside 100 complex, hand-crafted questions demanding expert knowledge of criminal law and procedure. Both long-form answers and supporting passages are provided. As an evaluation methodology, Legal RAG Bench leverages a full factorial design and novel hierarchical error decomposition framework, enabling apples-to-apples comparisons of the contributions of retrieval and reasoning models in RAG. We evaluate three state-of-the-art embedding models (Isaacus' Kanon 2 Embedder, Google's Gemini Embedding 001, and OpenAI's Text Embedding 3 Large) and two frontier LLMs (Gemini 3.1 Pro and GPT-5.2), finding that information retrieval is the primary driver of legal RAG performance, with LLMs exerting a more moderate effect on correctness and groundedness. Kanon 2 Embedder, in particular, had the largest positive impact on performance, improving average correctness by 17.5 points, groundedness by 4.5 points, and retrieval accuracy by 34 points. We observe that many errors attributed to hallucinations in legal RAG systems are in fact triggered by retrieval failures, concluding that retrieval sets the ceiling for the performance of many modern legal RAG systems. We document why and how we built Legal RAG Bench alongside the results of our evaluations. We also openly release our code and data to assist with reproduction of our findings.

The rapid progress of large language models (LLMs) is shifting semantic search toward a question-answering paradigm, where users ask questions and LLMs generate responses. In high-stake domains such as law, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is commonly used to mitigate hallucinations in generated responses. Nonetheless, prior work shows that RAG systems, whether general-purpose or legal-specific, still hallucinate at varying rates, making fine-grained evaluation essential. Despite the need, existing evaluation frameworks for legal RAG systems lack the granularity required to provide detailed analysis of retrieval and generation performance separately. Moreover, current benchmarks are largely English-only and centered on legal expert queries, overlooking non-expert needs. We introduce ClaimRAG-LAW, a comprehensive dataset for legal RAG that supports French and English, targets both experts and non-experts, and includes diverse question types reflecting realistic scenarios. We further apply a fine-grained evaluation framework of state-of-the-art legal RAG systems, revealing limitations in retrieval, generation, and claim-level analysis in the legal domain.

Legal consultation questions exhibit multi-level complexity. A single retrieval strategy often leads to over-reasoning for simple questions and poor interpretability for complex ones, making it difficult to meet the requirements for both answer quality and efficiency in high-risk scenarios. To address this issue, this paper proposes CoAL-RAG, a complexity-aware legal retrieval-augmented generation method, which constructs a multi-dimensional evaluation mechanism based on question essence'' and retrieval consistency'' to enable adaptive routing of retrieval strategies. First, the reasoning demand is quantified according to the logical structure of the question. Then, the discrepancy between semantic retrieval and keyword retrieval is utilized to indirectly reflect problem complexity, thereby selecting the most appropriate retrieval strategy and dynamically filtering contextual information. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed method significantly outperforms baseline models not only on Chinese legal benchmarks (SocialLawQA, LawBench) but also demonstrates strong cross-jurisdictional generalization on English datasets (LexGLUE, CaseHold). Specifically, on Chinese datasets, the BLEU score improves by 42.5% and ROUGE-L reaches 3.6 times that of knowledge graph-based methods. On English benchmarks, CoAL-RAG maintains highly competitive accuracy, achieving an optimal balance between generation quality, deep logical reasoning, and system efficiency across different legal systems.