Generating Legal Commentaries from Case Databases via Retrieval, Clustering, and Generation

We present an automated pipeline that decomposes Italian tax-court judgments into individual legal issues and extracts, for each issue, a structured XML representation grounded in the IRAC framework and the legal syllogism. The pipeline targets a corpus of approximately $330{,}000$ first- and second-instance decisions of the Italian tax courts and is built around a capable yet cost-efficient general-purpose model (DeepSeek V3), a choice driven by the need to process several hundred thousand documents at a sustainable cost. To address the well-documented unreliability of large language models on legal citations, we couple the extraction step with an automatic hallucination-detection filter that compares the references produced by the model with those identified in the judgment text by a dedicated parser (Linkoln), normalised to standard identifiers (URN-NIR, ECLI, CELEX). We validate the pipeline on $50$ judgments annotated by two PhDs in tax law, computing inter-annotator agreement and LLM-vs-expert agreement on both issue extraction and legal citations, together with a stand-alone evaluation of the hallucination filter. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first issue-level, expert-validated structured extraction pipeline with hallucination control for Italian tax-court decisions, and it provides a concrete starting point for downstream applications such as issue-level retrieval, citation-network analysis, and the construction of large-scale datasets of legal reasoning.

Applying computational methods to law at scale requires separating genuine legal reasoning from surface similarity. We study this through a concrete task: detecting implicit citations of the French Civil Code, where a court applies a statutory rule without naming it: a post-hoc question about the reasoning a court actually used. We release a benchmark of 1,015 passage-article pairs annotated by three legal experts. Our central finding is that their disagreement is itself informative: the third of cases the experts dispute are where models fail. Our best ensemble reaches an F1 score of 0.70 overall. Yet, two-thirds of its false positives fall on those disputed cases, a concentration that holds across all ten models we evaluate. Disagreement is a signal of intrinsic difficulty, not annotation noise. This should not block useful tools, however: reframed as top-$k$ ranking with multi-model consensus, the same signals reach 76% precision for the top-200 candidates without supervision.

This paper investigates chunking strategies for retrieval-augmented generation on German statutory law, using the German Civil Code as a structured benchmark corpus. We implement and compare a range of segmentation approaches, including structural units (sections, subsections, sentences, propositions), fixed-size windows, contextual chunking, semantic clustering, Lumber-style chunking, and RAPTOR-based hierarchical retrieval. All methods are evaluated on a legal question-answering dataset with section-level gold labels, measuring recall, query latency, index build time, and storage requirements. Results show that chunking strategies aligned with the inherent legal structure - particularly section and subsection - based retrieval-achieve the highest recall, while more complex approaches that override this structure perform worse. These simpler methods also offer favorable computational efficiency compared to LLM-intensive techniques such as contextual chunking, RAPTOR, and Lumber. The findings highlight a key trade-off between semantic enrichment and operational cost, and demonstrate that preserving domain-specific structure is critical for effective legal information retrieval.