Temporal Concept Drift in Legal Judgment Prediction: Neural Baselines Across Three Epochs of Ukrainian Court Decisions

Legal NLP benchmarks overwhelmingly evaluate a single language or aggregate tasks that differ fundamentally across jurisdictions, making cross-lingual comparison impossible. We introduce Multi-Legal-Bench, the first cross-jurisdictional legal benchmark that evaluates identical tasks across six countries (Ukraine, France, Netherlands, Poland, Czech Republic, Lithuania), four language families, and 134 million court decisions. The benchmark defines five tasks court-type classification, judgment form classification, case-outcome prediction, legal norm extraction, and cause category prediction mapped to structured metadata from national court registries, forming a deliberately sparse 5x6 task-jurisdiction matrix (20 of 30 cells filled). We evaluate 7 frontier LLMs under zero-shot and 3-shot prompting via AWS Bedrock, with 4 additional small/medium models (3-12B) for scaling analysis. Our results reveal that: (1) task-dependent few-shot effects discovered in Ukrainian replicate across all jurisdictions; (2) no single model dominates any language rankings shift with both task and jurisdiction; (3) cross-lingual few-shot transfer does not follow language proximity: UA->FR (Romance, -2.1 pp) transfers better than UA->PL (Slavic, -13.7 pp), with label-set alignment predicting transfer quality better than language family; and (4) tokenizer fertility, despite a 2.3x spread, does not significantly predict cross-lingual accuracy (r=-0.27, p=0.14), suggesting that model architecture and pretraining data dominate tokenizer efficiency. We release all data, prompts, and model predictions.

Tokenizer fertility varies 1.6x across foundation models on Ukrainian legal text, yet this cost-critical dimension is absent from model selection practice. We benchmark seven models from five providers on 273 validated court decisions from Ukraine's state registry (EDRSR), measuring tokenizer fertility and zero-shot performance on three tasks. Four findings emerge. (1) Qwen 3 models consume 60% more tokens than Llama-family models on identical input, making tokenizer analysis a prerequisite for cost-efficient deployment. (2) NVIDIA Nemotron Super 3 (120B) achieves the highest composite score (83.1), outperforming Mistral Large 3 (5.6x more total parameters) at one-third the API cost model scale is a poor proxy for domain performance. (3) Few-shot prompting degrades performance by up to 26 percentage points; stratified and prompt-sensitivity ablations confirm this is intrinsic to Ukrainian-language demonstrations, not an artifact of example selection. (4) A cross-temporal generalization experiment reveals that classifiers trained on pre-war court ecisions (2008-2013) lose 27.9 percentage points when applied to full-scale invasion era decisions (2022-2026), with a pronounced forward-backward asymmetry: newer models transfer backward (+14.6 pp above forward transfer), but older models fail catastrophically on wartime legal language. For practitioners: tokenizer analysis should precede model selection, and zero-shot is a more reliable default than few-shot for morphologically rich languages. To support reproducibility and address the absence of Ukrainian from legal NLP benchmarks, we release a public dataset of 14,452 court decisions spanning 2008-2026, annotated with seven outcome labels across three temporal epochs that capture the impact of armed conflict on judicial proceedings.

Legal NLP benchmarks are overwhelmingly English-centric, leaving failure modes in morphologically rich, non-Latin-script languages undetected. We introduce UA-Legal-Bench, a five-task benchmark for evaluating large language models on Ukrainian legal reasoning, built from the Unified State Register of Court Decisions (EDRSR) -- one of the world's largest open judicial corpora (99.5 million decisions). The benchmark comprises: (1) case-type classification (4 classes, n=2,000), (2) judgment form classification (4 classes, n=2,000), (3) case-outcome prediction (6 classes, n=800), (4) legal norm extraction (n=1,794), and (5) cause category prediction (22 classes, n=1,871). We evaluate 11 LLMs (3B--675B) from five families under zero-shot and 3-shot prompting via AWS Bedrock with 158K API calls. Our results reveal sharply task-dependent few-shot effects: few-shot prompting improves judgment form classification by up to +38.6 pp but has mixed effects on outcome prediction. We show that accuracy is misleading on imbalanced legal tasks: the model with highest COP accuracy (62%) is a majority-class predictor (macro-F1: 23%), while the genuinely best model scores only 44% macro-F1. Within-family scaling analysis reveals that 8B models can match frontier performance on surface-level tasks but scaling thresholds vary dramatically across families. We release all data, prompts, and model predictions.