A Grammar of French Civil Cassation: A Ground-Level Dataset and Tool

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. Expert disagreement thus signals uncertainty in the task and in its gold label, which aggregate metrics hide. 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 of the benchmark without supervision.

Large language models have shown strong performance across a range of legal tasks, but existing benchmarks rarely evaluate the ability to take and defend a legal position, reason under incomplete information, or synthesize multiple statutory provisions. This gap is particularly pronounced for Canadian law, which remains underrepresented in legal NLP. We introduce GRACE (Grounded Reasoning Adversarial Canadian LEgal examples), a dataset of 1,915 question-reasoning-answer instances grounded in Canadian federal legislation. GRACE covers three reasoning modes: adversarial advocacy, uncertainty, and applied reasoning. We develop a pipeline that partitions raw statutory text, generates scenario-based questions and reasoning, and filters examples through model-free citation verification and LLM-based quality auditing. As a proof of concept, we fine-tune CLeAR-4B (Canadian Legal Adversarial Reasoning), a lightweight model for grounded legal reasoning, and evaluate it against the unmodified Qwen3-4B base model in open- and closed-book settings. CLeAR-4B substantially improves agreement with teacher outputs and statutory citation behavior when the relevant act text is provided, while its grounding degrades sharply when the statute is withheld. These results suggest that GRACE can support the development of lightweight legal models that reason more effectively from supplied statutory text.

Court judgments are central to legal practice and jurisprudence, yet discourse analysis of Hong Kong judgments has received limited attention, owing largely to the absence of expert-annotated corpora. We introduce the Hong Kong Judgment Discourse Dataset (HKJudge), the first sentence-level expert-annotated legal discourse corpus. HKJudge includes criminal judgments across all five levels of HK's court hierarchy, comprising $\sim$290k sentences and $\sim$6.5 million tokens, fully annotated by legal linguistics experts. We design a two-tier discourse schema that captures what facts a court finds, how it reasons, and what it rules. At the sentence level, each sentence is assigned one of 26 rhetorical roles. At the span level, sentences are further annotated with three sentencing elements (charge, imprisonment term, fine). Ten legal linguistics annotators produced the annotations with an inter-annotator agreement of $κ= 0.8$. We formulate two tasks on HKJudge, termed rhetorical role classification and legal element extraction, and provide the first benchmark evaluation of four BERT-based models, two open-source LLMs under zero-shot and fine-tuning settings, and four commercial LLMs on both tasks. Our work demonstrates the value of sentence-level discourse annotation for modeling the structure of HK judgments and provides a rich data foundation for future work on legal judgment prediction. The HKJudge dataset and code are available at https://github.com/xuanxixi/HKJudge.