InsufficiencyBench: Evaluating LLM legal advice on underspecified user queries

Legal research is a core and time-consuming legal workflow. Lawyers must identify controlling authority, verify that it remains valid, reconcile statutes and cases, and synthesize a grounded answer. Language model agents are a natural fit for this retrieval-intensive workflow, and automating even part of it would be valuable. But that value depends on reliability: a single missing authority, stale citation, or wrong legal conclusion can make an otherwise plausible answer unusable. We introduce Legal Research Bench (LRB), a benchmark of 413 open-ended U.S. legal research questions written by experts, each paired with a gold answer, supporting authorities, and a binary grading rubric. We evaluate thirteen frontier models in a harness with web search, case-law search, page parsing, and retrieval tools. We score agent responses through all-pass grading with source verification, where a response is correct only if every required criterion is satisfied and its cited authorities verify. We also validate the LLM judge against expert attorneys ensuring that benchmark scores track attorney judgment. Agents remain far from reliable: among the models we tested, the strongest, Claude Opus 4.8, is fully correct on 42.9% of questions. Performance also varies substantially by task setting: all-pass rates differ across areas of law and are lower on questions requiring reconciliation of conflicting authorities. Across models, more turns, tool calls, and inference cost do not predict higher accuracy.

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.

RAG-based legal assistants have been growing in popularity, but LLM hallucinations remain a key issue and potentially undermines justice. While benchmarks have been developed to evaluate progress, many rely on synthetic queries rather than realistic legal scenarios. Moreover, Canadian law remains underrepresented in existing evaluations. To address this gap, we introduce CanLegalRAGBench, a Canadian legal QA benchmark based on realistic queries and expert-annotated answers grounded in case law. Our evaluation shows that retrieval performance is sensitive to design choices and that open-source embedding models are competitive with closed source models. However, it also reveals the limitation of automatic evaluations that penalize systems for retrieving alternative relevant documents. We also find that generated answers often diverge from gold responses, either with hallucinations or by producing overly detailed or irrelevant content, with 8-29% of claims not being supported by the retrieved documents. We hope this benchmark will help drive continued progress in addressing limitations of legal RAG systems.