Legal precedent retrieval is a fundamental task in legal case preparation, planning, litigation strategy, and legal research. Current approaches for automatic precedent retrieval map legal documents to a low-dimensional semantic space and compute similarity based on the proximity of their representations. These approaches treat legal documents as monolithic texts, ignoring the rhetorical organization of the legal technicalities. Ergo, they overlook nuanced legal meanings and fail to distinguish the contextual significance of legal entities and concepts that vary based on their rhetorical roles within the document. To address this insufficiency, we propose the PRecG pipeline that computes the similarity between pairs of legal judgments by hierarchically learning their representations. The process begins by decomposing each document into distinct semantic units (segments) based on the rhetorical roles of sentences. For each rhetorical segment, a knowledge graph is constructed to capture the legal entities and their relationships within the segment. Contextual representations of the entities are then learned and aggregated to derive segment-level embeddings. These embeddings are further integrated to produce a unified document-level representation, and finally, the semantic similarity between a pair of documents is computed. We validate the performance of the proposed approach through extensive experiments on a benchmark Indian legal dataset, comparing it against state-of-the-art baselines to demonstrate its effectiveness.
Graph-based Retrieval-Augmented Generation (GraphRAG) advances flat document retrieval by structuring knowledge as relational graphs, enabling more coherent and effective reasoning. However, applying it to specific domains like legal reasoning faces critical challenges. (i) Legal corpora are heterogeneous, containing multi-granular knowledge from cases, articles and interpretations. A flat knowledge graph cannot adequately differentiate between factual details, applied rules, and abstract principles, limiting accurate retrieval. (ii) Reliable legal judgment demands transparent, evidence-based reasoning. Traditional RAG passes retrieved context directly to an LLM without verification, resulting in opaque, error-prone reasoning. To this end, we propose LegalGraphRAG, a framework designed for reliable legal reasoning. Our approach introduces two core components: a hierarchical legal graph that hierarchically organizes legal sources to enable retrieval at appropriate abstraction levels, and a multi-agent system for reliable legal reasoning, where a Researcher retrieves candidate evidence, an Auditor rigorously verifies its validity against source documents, and an Adjudicator synthesizes the set of verified evidence to render a final judgment. Extensive experiments show that LegalGraphRAG achieves the state-of-the-art performance, outperforming existing GraphRAG baselines in accurate and trustworthy legal analysis. Our code, datasets and implementation details are available at https://github.com/XMUDeepLIT/LegalGraphRAG.
Prior case retrieval (PCR) aims to identify precedent cases relevant to a given query case. Existing PCR benchmarks and methods predominantly operate at the document level, treating entire judgments as the unit of relevance. This formulation is suboptimal for legal practitioners, as judgments address multiple legal issues and only a small subset of paragraphs is relevant to a particular query. Addressing this gap, we introduce UK-PRBench, a benchmark for paragraph-level precedent retrieval in UK case law, constructed from judgments obtained from the UK National Archives and covering a broad range of UK courts and tribunals. Furthermore, we evaluate state-of-the-art retrieval models and establish baseline results. Our experiments show that paragraph-level precedent retrieval remains challenging for current retrieval approaches, highlighting substantial room for improvement. UK-PRBench provides a standardised benchmark for evaluating fine-grained precedent retrieval and advancing retrieval systems for the UK legal domain.
The semantic gap between colloquial user queries and professional legal documents presents a fundamental challenge in Legal Case Retrieval (LCR). Existing dense retrieval methods typically treat LCR as a black-box semantic matching process, neglecting the explicit juridical logic that underpins legal relevance. To address this, we propose GLIER (Generative Legal Inference and Evidence Ranking), a framework that reformulates retrieval as an inference process over latent legal variables. GLIER decomposes the task into two interpretability-driven stages. First, a Joint Generative Inference module translates raw queries into latent legal indicators, including charges and legal elements, using a unified sequence-to-sequence strategy that jointly generates charges and elements to enforce logical consistency. Second, a Multi-View Evidence Fusion mechanism aggregates generative confidence with structural and lexical signals for precise ranking. Extensive experiments on LeCaRD and LeCaRDv2 demonstrate that GLIER outperforms strong baselines such as SAILER and KELLER. Notably, GLIER exhibits strong data efficiency, maintaining robust performance even when trained with only 10% of the data.