Do LLMs Fabricate Legal Citations? A Bilingual Benchmark on Saudi Data Protection Law and the GDPR

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into legal drafting and research workflows, where incorrect citations or fabricated precedents can cause serious professional harm. Existing legal benchmarks largely emphasize statutory reasoning, contract understanding, or general legal question answering, but they do not directly study a central common-law failure mode: when asked to provide case authorities without external grounding, models may return plausible-looking but incorrect citations or cases. We introduce LegalCiteBench, a benchmark for studying closed-book citation recovery, citation verification, and case matching in legal language models. LegalCiteBench contains approximately 24K evaluation instances constructed from 1,000 real U.S. judicial opinions from the Case Law Access Project. The benchmark covers five citation-centric tasks: citation retrieval, citation completion, citation error detection, case matching, and case verification and correction. Across 21 LLMs, exact citation recovery remains highly challenging in this closed-book setting: even the strongest models score below 7/100 on citation retrieval and completion. Within the evaluated models, scale and legal-domain pretraining provide limited gains and do not resolve this difficulty. Models also frequently provide concrete but incorrect or low-overlap authorities under our evaluation protocol, with Misleading Answer Rates (MAR) exceeding 94% for 20 of 21 evaluated models on retrieval-heavy tasks. A prompt-only abstention experiment shows that explicit uncertainty instructions reduce some confident fabrication but do not improve citation correctness. LegalCiteBench is intended as a diagnostic framework for studying authority generation failures, verification behavior, and abstention when external grounding is absent, incomplete, or bypassed.

Large language models systematically hallucinate legal citations -- fabricating statute references, citing repealed provisions, and confusing jurisdictions -- yet no automated method exists to measure or reduce this behavior at scale. We propose citation grounding (CG), a metric that verifies LLM-generated legal citations against a ground-truth citation graph extracted from 100.8 million Ukrainian court decisions (502 million edges, 21,736 unique statute nodes). CG decomposes into three components -- citation precision (does the cited provision exist?), citation relevance (is it contextually appropriate?), and citation temporality (was it valid at the relevant date?) -- enabling differential diagnosis of hallucination types. Empirical evaluation on 100 Ukrainian legal queries across five systems -- four commercial LLMs via AWS Bedrock (Claude Haiku 4.5, Mistral Pixtral Large, Amazon Nova Pro/Lite) and one RAG-augmented production system -- reveals CG ranging from 0.791 to 0.873, with 13-21% of citations hallucinated. To reduce hallucinations without human annotation, we introduce Citation Grounding DPO (CG-DPO): a method that constructs preference pairs algorithmically by corrupting verified citations from real court decisions via four targeted strategies. On a dataset of 2,244 court decisions, a Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct model fine-tuned with LoRA achieves 98.5% mean validation accuracy in distinguishing correct from corrupted citations (rewards margin +14.9, std < 0.3 pp across 3 seeds). The citation graph, evaluation framework, and CG-DPO dataset are released as open resources.

Legal reasoning is inherently jurisdiction-dependent: the same facts can call for different legal rules and yield different conclusions across legal systems. Yet existing benchmarks rarely evaluate whether large language models (LLMs) can recognize such jurisdiction-specific variation, especially when identical fact patterns lead to divergent legal outcomes.We introduce CrossLex, a same-fact, legal-source-grounded benchmark for evaluating cross-jurisdictional legal reasoning in LLMs across three jurisdictions: China, California, and Germany. Built from authoritative legal sources, CrossLex aligns 55 legal issues spanning contract, consumer, criminal, family, and labor law, and constructs jurisdiction-aligned questions paired with answers and supporting citations. In total, CrossLex contains 6,149 instances organized into 385 fact groups, with all legal issues, answers, and cited authorities reviewed by legal professionals.To disentangle basic legal knowledge from cross-jurisdictional reasoning, CrossLex defines three complementary tasks: single-jurisdiction reasoning (T1), joint cross-jurisdictional comparison (T2), and fine-grained cross-jurisdictional evaluation (T3). We further propose Grounded Joint, a metric that jointly assesses answer correctness and legal-source grounding, and provide a unified evaluation for streamlined benchmarking. Extensive experiments on representative LLMs show that, although current models can often answer legal questions correctly, they struggle to provide accurate cross-jurisdictional legal citations.We hope that CrossLex will facilitate future research on source-grounded cross-jurisdictional legal reasoning.