Enhancing Legal LLMs through Metadata-Enriched RAG Pipelines and Direct Preference Optimization

Large Language Models (LLMs) have transformed natural language processing, but their lack of interpretable reasoning and tendency to hallucinate pose significant challenges for legal applications. While LLMs show promise for legal text analysis and generation, they struggle with accurate citation attribution and precedent verification. For example, in legal contexts, a single incorrect precedent can jeopardize a case. Current approaches to improve LLM reliability in legal domains suffer from two key limitations: inadequate integration of structured legal knowledge during training or fine-tuning, and insufficient verification mechanisms for generated legal content. To address these challenges, we propose the TRISM (Trustworthy, Reliable, Interpretable, Safe Models) framework, which integrates NeuroSymbolic AI principles with LLMs to leverage both neural learning capabilities and symbolic reasoning over structured legal knowledge. The TRISM approach addresses the above limitations while maintaining interpretable decision pathways. Our framework formalizes the extraction of symbolic knowledge from legal textual documents and incorporates Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) as a core component for grounding LLM outputs in verified legal sources. In this position paper, we make the following contributions: (1) An analysis of the limitations of AI in law; (2) Introduce RASOR RAG which creates foundations for neurosymbolic RAG by generating explicit interpretable rationales that could be formalized into symbolic representations; (3) A formalized methodology for creating symbolic legal knowledge bases that support both interpretable reasoning and output verification in LLMs; and (4) The TRISM framework for integrating symbolic legal knowledge with LLMs.

Large language models show promise for legal applications, but deploying frontier models raises concerns about cost, latency, and data privacy. We evaluate whether sub-10B parameter models can serve as practical alternatives by testing nine models across three legal benchmarks (ContractNLI, CaseHOLD, and ECtHR) using five prompting strategies (direct, chain-of-thought, few-shot, BM25 RAG, and dense RAG). Across 405 experiments with three random seeds per configuration, we find that a Mixture-of-Experts model activating only 3B parameters matches GPT-4o-mini in mean accuracy while surpassing it on legal holding identification, and that architecture and training quality matter more than raw parameter count. Our largest model (9B parameters) performs worst overall. Chain-of-thought prompting proves sharply task-dependent, improving contract entailment but degrading multiple-choice legal reasoning, while few-shot prompting emerges as the most consistently effective strategy. Comparing BM25 and dense retrieval for RAG, we find near-identical results, suggesting the bottleneck lies in the language model's utilization of retrieved context rather than retrieval quality. All experiments were conducted via cloud inference APIs at a total cost of $62, demonstrating that rigorous LLM evaluation is accessible without dedicated GPU infrastructure.

Large language models are increasingly used in high-stakes domains such as law, where systems must ground their reasoning in retrieved evidence and abstain when that evidence is insufficient. However, existing reward models are largely optimised for general preferences rather than contextual grounding, limiting their ability to evaluate these behaviours in retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) settings. We introduce a framework for transforming existing legal QA datasets into contextual preference data and use it to construct LegalRewardBench (LRB), a benchmark for evaluating grounded legal generation under noisy and insufficient retrieval conditions. Across general and legal contextual evaluation, we find that contextual DPO improves grounded evaluation, but performance is sensitive to preference-data construction. Length-balanced augmentation substantially improves grounded legal evaluation, with the strongest configuration combining length-balanced legal and general contextual preference data and improving performance by up to $\mathbf{+25.6}$pp over baseline. We further find evidence of cross-jurisdiction transfer: models contextually refined primarily on Victorian criminal-law data improve grounded evaluation on external US legal benchmarks, including a $\mathbf{+16.2}$pp improvement on Housing Statute QA. Together, these results provide a reproducible foundation for constructing and evaluating grounded legal reward models in retrieval-augmented settings.