When Can a Machine Trust a Statute? A Survival Certificate for Machine-Extracted Legal Logic

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.

We present a family of retrieval methods for Polish statutory law built on document surrogates: language-model annotations attached to statutory articles at index time. Three designs occupy different points on the cost-quality frontier. ASCR is a surrogate cascade with reranking; ASCR-H fuses a dense list into that cascade; and DTF replaces both language-model stages with three lexical and dense retrievers, weighted reciprocal rank fusion, and a deterministic re-scoring prior, using no model call before generation. We evaluate all three against fourteen lexical, dense, fused and ablated baselines plus four controls, on 300 questions from the 2024 and 2025 Polish bar and legal counsel entrance examinations (264 with their reference article in the corpus), over 82,508 articles from 1,133 acts. On paired McNemar tests, ASCR-H places the reference provision at rank one significantly more often than every other non-oracle configuration except one of its own ablations (eighteen of twenty comparisons significant in its favour at p < 0.005), reaching 72.3% against 61.7% for BM25 and 52.3% for dense retrieval. The advantage is concentrated at the head and does not survive depth: it is significant at cutoffs of one and five, disappears by ten, and by twenty DTF leads on point estimate (86.0% versus 84.5%) at one ninth the latency and less than half the cost. Ablation attributes 27.6 points of rank-one accuracy to the reranking stage alone. We further report that the ranking advantage does not extend to citation accuracy, where DTF matches the oracle ceiling, and three negative results on lemmatisation, pseudo-relevance feedback and query rewriting. Surrogate annotation covers 27.0% of the corpus but every reference provision in the benchmark, an asymmetry we disclose and discuss. Benchmark, per-question outputs and paired significance tests are publicly available.

Large language models are increasingly used for legal research, yet their fixed training cutoffs and reliance on static parametric knowledge are at odds with the evolving nature of statutory law. We study two temporal failure modes: post-cutoff staleness, where models apply superseded rules after legislative amendments, and recency bias, where models prefer newer provisions even when a historical version governs the fact pattern. To this end, we present a benchmark of 312 expert-validated, time-sensitive German statutory QA pairs spanning three categories: Post-Cutoff Amendment Questions, Pre-Amendment Questions, and Multi-Provision Pre-Amendment Questions. We evaluate five LLMs by OpenAI, Anthropic and DeepSeek under four inference settings: Vanilla, Web-search, and two retrieval-augmented variants that enforce temporal validity via a fact date extraction and version filtering. Using an LLM-as-a-judge validated against human expert ratings, we find severe degradation in the Vanilla post-cutoff setting. Both RAG approaches substantially improve performance across all question types, while web search yields unstable gains and exhibits a marked recency bias on historically anchored tasks. Our results indicate that reliable legal QA requires treating temporal validity as a hard constraint.