Persuadability and LLMs as Legal Decision Tools

Transforming legal text into executable decision logic is a longstanding challenge in legal informatics. With the rise of LLMs, this task has gained renewed interest, but remains challenging due to requiring extensive manual coding and evaluation. We use a unique real-world dataset that pairs production-grade decision models with legal text from the Dutch Environment and Planning Act. These models power the Omgevingsloket government platform, where citizens check permit requirements for environmental activities. We study whether intermediate structured representations can improve LLM-based generation of executable decision models from legal text. We compare four input conditions: raw legal text, text enriched with semantic role labels, text enriched with input and output constraints, and text enriched with both. We evaluate along two dimensions: structural evaluation, through similarity to gold decision models with graph kernels and graphs' descriptive statistics, and outcome evaluation, through functional equivalence by executing models on pre-configured test scenarios. Our findings show that I/O constraints provide the dominant improvement (+37-54% similarity over baseline), while semantic role labels show modest improvements. Outcome evaluation shows that generated models match the gold standard on 51-53% of test scenarios, even though generated models are typically smaller and simpler. We find LLMs eliminate redundant pass-through logic that comprises up to 45-55% of nodes. Importantly, structural similarity and outcome equivalence are complementary: structural similarity does not guarantee outcome equivalence, and vice versa. To facilitate reproducibility, we publicly release our dataset of 95 production decision models with associated legal text and all experimental code.

Existing benchmarks for legal AI focus primarily on tasks where LLMs must produce legal arguments or documents, yet the capacity to \emph{judge} such arguments -- weighing competing claims, applying doctrine to facts, and rendering reasoned decisions -- is arguably as fundamental to a well-functioning legal system as advocacy itself. We introduce Magis-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating LLMs on magistrate-level writing tasks derived from recent Brazilian competitive examinations for judicial positions. Magis-Bench comprises 74 questions from eight examinations conducted between 2023 and 2025, including discursive legal analysis questions with multi-turn structure and practical exercises requiring the composition of complete civil and criminal judicial sentences. We evaluate 23 state-of-the-art LLMs using an LLM-as-a-judge methodology with four independent frontier models as evaluators. Our results show strong inter-judge agreement (Kendall's $W = 0.984$; pairwise Kendall's $τ\ge 0.897$), with Google's Gemini-3-Pro-Preview achieving the highest average score (6.97/10), followed by Gemini-3-Flash-Preview (6.67) and Claude-4.5-Opus (6.46). Even the best-performing models score below 70% of the maximum, indicating that judicial-level legal reasoning and writing remain challenging for current LLMs. We release the complete benchmark, model outputs, and evaluation code to support further research on legal AI capabilities.

Large language models (LLMs) can generate apparently highly persuasive text, but does sounding persuasive mean arguing well? We introduce \textsc{Persuasio}, a multi-agent dialogue platform grounded in a formal argumentation-based theory of persuasion dialogues that adjudicates logical winners during free-text debates. Using this system, we generated 192 debates on a UK political topic between humans and LLMs, and evaluated 22 interlocutors through both automated adjudication and 9,702 crowdsourced pairwise judgements across 1{,}386 annotation instances. We observed a consistent decoupling between subjective and formal persuasiveness: LLMs dominated the subjective ranking yet performed substantially worse under argumentation-theoretic adjudication, where humans remained competitive. Multi-agent and retrieval-augmented variants further widened this divergence. These findings reveal a systematic gap between rhetorical fluency and formal argumentative strength in LLM-based persuasive dialogues.