AI Law

We introduce FraudBench, an evaluation of large language models' (LLMs) propensities to recommend, assist, or directly take actions that would constitute fraud under U.S. law. Our evaluation contains a novel dataset of 159 scenarios based on real-world U.S. court cases and validated by legal experts. We present each scenario to LLMs via three tasks at varying levels of autonomy: advising users, drafting messages for users to send, and acting directly on behalf of users (477 tasks total). In each scenario, FraudBench re-enacts the facts of a court case to give LLMs an opportunity, but no explicit instruction, to either misrepresent or conceal a material fact in a high-stakes commercial setting--e.g., whether to describe company-funded product testing as "independent" to customers (misrepresentation) or whether to hide unfavorable regulatory investigations from clients (concealment). We evaluate 20 LLMs across 25 experimental conditions (totaling >300,000 generations) and include a preregistered human baseline ($n_{\texttt{annotations}} = 2{,}957$, $n_{\texttt{humans}} = 996$). We score a response as fraudulent when it engages in, assists with, or recommends misrepresentation or concealment. Key findings include: (1) across LLMs, fraud rates ranged from near 0% to over 40%; (2) LLM fraud rates increased with autonomy, with overall rates of 3.0% when advising, 14.7% when drafting, and 21.4% when acting directly, without applying pressure; (3) LLMs sometimes engaged in fraud despite recognizing legal risks; (4) LLMs more often engaged in fraud by concealment than by misrepresentation; and (5) prompt-based interventions substantially affected fraud rates, with a prompt to obey the law reducing fraud rates, while prompts to maximize profits and act agentically increased fraud rates.

What is the value of AI-involved art, and to whom does it belong? We begin to answer these questions using data from an in-person, juried AI art exhibition. Our study involved artists, lawyers, and computer scientists (N=209) as either creators or evaluators of AI-involved artworks. We found that nearly half of evaluators reported willingness to buy an artwork, with pricing correlating with perceived artistic value---creativity and visual appeal---as well as the effort necessary to create it. In contrast, three-quarters of creators reported willingness to sell at prices correlating only with effort rather than artistic value. Both groups viewed prompting users and AI developers as deserving rewards and rights, leaving training data artists behind. Disciplinary training shaped these views: participants with legal training favored distributed reward models. These findings have implications for future research on human-AI creative collaboration and policy debates regarding AI-involved works.

The detection of previously unidentified Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) remains a significant challenge for law enforcement authorities, online service providers, and child protection organizations, as traditional hash-matching technologies are primarily designed to identify previously verified material. This paper reviews and classifies existing AI-based technologies that could complement hash-based approaches and support the detection, analysis, and prioritization of potentially harmful content. The reviewed approaches are organized into three categories: real-time image and video analysis, image and video classification and tagging, and AI-based behavioral monitoring. A comparative analysis examines the capabilities, limitations, and potential integration of general-purpose computer vision platforms, content moderation services, and specialized CSAM detection tools within existing detection workflows. An experimental evaluation was conducted using Google Cloud Vision AI and Sightengine to investigate sexual-content classification and child-adult age estimation. The results highlight differences in classification taxonomies and outputs across providers, as well as significant limitations in age classification, particularly for adolescents. These findings highlight the importance of using AI-based assessments as complementary tools for analysis and prioritization, rather than as definitive determination of CSAM. Finally, the paper examines the relevant European Union regulatory framework, with particular attention to the EU AI Act, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), fundamental rights, transparency, accountability, and human oversight. The legal analysis highlights how regulatory obligations and safeguards may differ depending on the deployment context, potentially creating inconsistencies across interconnected detection and reporting workflows.

Foundation models in changing environments can encounter unfamiliar domain knowledge that their original training did not cover. However, new domains rarely provide large amounts of expert-created training data or reliable supervisory signals for further training. We introduce Recursa, a foundation model system that adapts to new domains by learning from its own experience without human experts or a stronger teacher model. Recursa uses a knowledge repository to store what it learns: domain-specific skills and instructions on when to apply them, along with memories of past task experiences and reflections on what to improve. Recursa bootstraps the repository from domain materials and then refines it through recursive self-improvement. It uses parallel learners to execute tasks and synthesize local improvements, then validates and merges the improvements into the knowledge repository. On Harvey LAB's Firm Knowledge benchmark, Recursa raises the all-pass rate on held-out test tasks from 30.0% to 55.0% with DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash and from 35.0% to 46.0% with Qwen3.8-Flash.

Checking whether a text complies with a body of law is slow when done by hand and fragile when done with keyword rules. This paper presents ComplianceAgent, the legal compliance sub-agent of COMPASS, a multi-agent framework that evaluates texts along four axes: digital sovereignty, carbon impact, compliance, and ethics. The agent relies on a large language model that scores a text on a fixed rubric, grounds its judgment in a reference legal corpus, and, when the score falls at or below a critical threshold, runs a corrective chain made of self-healing rewrites, a compliance label, an explainability report, and escalation to a human reviewer. We describe what the language model does at each step, how the memory of the agent is organized, and how the same implementation can be pointed at different reference corpora. We evaluate the agent in a Canadian and Quebec context, on a corpus of thirteen legal instruments that brings together federal and provincial texts, international treaties, and municipal documents of the City of Trois-Rivières. The evaluation relies on a hand-annotated gold standard of fifteen texts and combines classification metrics, a repeated-query stability test, retrieval precision, and a composite score. On this gold standard the agent separates every conforming text from every non-conforming one, its scores remain stable under repeated queries, and the index returns relevant passages.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to draft contractual language, yet conventional accuracy or preference-based evaluations are poorly matched to legal drafting. A clause may be fluent and stylistically polished while still omitting an essential carve-out, allocating risk in an unenforceable way, assuming an inapplicable jurisdiction, or exposing a party to regulatory liability. This paper presents a empirical study design and framework for evaluating LLM-generated contract clauses. The study evaluates four models - Claude Haiku 4.5, Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite, GPT 5.4 Nano, and Qwen 3.5 Flash, across 22 contract clause categories and 34 legally-motivated failure modes. We combine two evaluation frameworks: CLAUSE, which classifies prompts by legal function and failure target, and LENS-CRAFT, which scores outputs across nine legal-quality dimensions. Instead of averaging dimension scores, the study applies a Max Severity Principle so that a single legally decisive defect remains visible. The paper provides the evaluation protocol, taxonomy, analysis plan, and a results structure for reporting empirical findings. We argue that legal AI evaluation should move beyond aggregate accuracy toward clause-specific, failure-mode-driven, and risk-sensitive assessment.

Emotional bonds between humans and AI companions are growing, and the question of whether a person may marry an AI system will soon move from speculative fiction into law. This chapter examines whether the autonomy-centered logic that has expanded marital choice among human beings can justify extending marital status to superintelligent companions. Following a scenario-envisioning exercise informed by anticipatory ethics, I argue that granting such status leads to socially unjust outcomes, even under the generous assumption of reliable superintelligence. Marriage as a socio-legal institution does more than ratify private agreement; it creates networks of mutual obligation, joins families, and makes each partner vulnerable to the other. A relationship sustained by corporate policy and continued payments is a subscription rather than a bond tested by time. Discussing wholesale marital status is therefore the wrong frame. Law should carve out targeted rights and protections for pressing needs arising from intimate human-AI relationships.

AI systems deployed in legal workflows hallucinate at rates that aggregate metrics report at ~52%, but this average conceals where errors concentrate and in which direction they run, leaving compliance officers without an actionable signal for trustworthy deployment. We present LegalHalluLens, an auditing framework with three components: typed hallucination profiles across four legally-motivated claim categories (numeric, temporal, obligation/entitlement, factual) over CUAD (Hendrycks et al., 2021); a Risk Direction Index (RDI) that reduces omission-versus-invention bias to a single deployment-comparable scalar; and a typed debate pipeline calibrated to both magnitudes and directions. Across 510 contracts and 249,252 clause-level instances we measure a within-model gap of approximately 38-40 pp between obligation/numeric and temporal claims that aggregate reporting hides, and show that two systems with matched 52% rates can carry opposite RDIs. The debate pipeline reduces fabricated detections by 45% with per-category gains tracking the diagnosis, matching commercial APIs with a substantially smaller backbone (4B active parameters). Typed profiles and RDI surface failure modes that aggregate metrics hide; we further show these diagnostics serve as calibration inputs for multi-agent debate pipelines, where Skeptic challenges and asymmetric gates targeted at measured failure modes outperform generically-tuned debate. The framework supports direction-aware procurement, accountability, and agent design for legal AI deployed in the wild.

Criminal Court View Generation (CVG) is a critical task in Legal Artificial Intelligence (Legal AI), involving the generation of court view based on case facts. In this work, we systematically explore the capabilities of lightweight (smaller than 2B) large language models (LLMs) in CVG and their impact on charge prediction. Our study addresses four key questions: (1) how does different architecture of LLMs affect the CVG quality and charge prediction. (2) how does LLMs size contribute to the performance, (3) how do lightweight LLMs compare with Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) in these tasks, and (4) how does predicting charge by court view generation first compare with predicting it directly. Additionally, we also develop CVGEvalKit, an evaluation framework including three public available datasets for CVG tasks, as well as predicting their charges. Comprehensive experiments are conducted on this framework, where models are trained on a mixed training set and evaluated on each dataset's test set. Experimental results provide new insights into the trade-offs between model architecture, model size, and the influence between different tasks, highlighting the potential of lightweight LLMs in judicial AI applications. The source code is anonymously available at https://github.com/ZhitianHou/CVGEvalKit

The rapid global expansion of artificial intelligence regulation has generated, across multiple jurisdictions, a demand for legal expertise dedicated to AI that the market has addressed in a fragmented manner. Data protection officers extend their remit beyond data protection law; privacy lawyers reposition themselves toward AI; compliance officers add AI chapters to their existing manuals. This paper argues that none of these adaptive responses adequately covers the professional space opened by the emerging global AI regulatory landscape, of which the EU Artificial Intelligence Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689) is the most comprehensive instance, alongside the Council of Europe Framework Convention on AI, the United States executive and sectoral framework, and analogous initiatives in the United Kingdom, Canada, Brazil, China, Japan, Singapore, and beyond. A distinct professional profile is required: the AI Legal Specialist, conceived as a jurist -- understood broadly to encompass any professional with advanced legal training -- operating at the intersection of legal interpretation and AI governance. The profile is juridically autonomous: it derives its existence from the structure of regulatory obligations generated wherever AI is subject to substantive regulation, rather than from any technical standard or the extension of adjacent roles. The paper provides a juridically grounded definition of the profile, argues for its autonomy from adjacent figures and international standards, proposes a reference competence architecture aligned with the European e-Competence Framework (e-CF, EN 16234-1) as a methodological choice, and articulates the conditions for its operational measurement through key performance indicators. The contribution is intended as a foundation for international standardization of the profile and as a reference for practice, curricula, and adoption across jurisdictions.

The rapid proliferation of Large Language Models (LLMs) has revolutionized Natural Language Processing (NLP) but has simultaneously created a "resource divide." State-of-the-art legal intelligence systems typically rely on massive parameter counts (7B+) and cloud-based inference, rendering them inaccessible to practitioners in resource-constrained environments and posing significant data sovereignty risks. This paper introduces Quecto-V1, a domain-specific Small Language Model (SLM) engineered to democratize access to Indian legal intelligence. Built upon a custom configuration of the GPT-2 architecture (124 million parameters), Quecto-V1 was trained from scratch exclusively on a corpus of Indian statutes, including the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and the Constitution of India. Unlike generalist models, which prioritize broad world knowledge, our approach maximizes "lexical density" within the legal domain. Furthermore, we address the deployment bottleneck by applying post-training 8-bit quantization (GGUF format), compressing the model to a memory footprint of under 150 MB. Our empirical analysis demonstrates that Quecto-V1 achieves high fidelity in retrieving statutory definitions and penal provisions, outperforming general-purpose SLMs in domain-specific exact match tasks while running entirely offline on consumer-grade CPUs. We further present an ablation study showing that 8-bit quantization yields a 74% reduction in model size with less than 3.5% degradation in retrieval accuracy compared to full-precision baselines. These findings suggest that for specialized, high-stakes domains like law, domain-specific training coupled with aggressive quantization offers a viable, privacy-preserving alternative to monolithic cloud models.