Legal Domain

Existing legal benchmarks cover diverse tasks, while continuous monetary remedies remain comparatively underexplored. We introduce ECtHR-NPD, to the best of our knowledge, the first benchmark for predicting non-pecuniary damage (NPD) awards at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) from case information when no statutory formula or explicit calculation rule determines the amount. ECtHR-NPD contains 14,575 cases with case-level awards in nominal euros, chronological splits, and a protocol separating target construction from model input. We evaluate a battery of methods, including constant predictors, gradient-boosted trees, retrieval methods, fine-tuned encoder language models (LMs), prompted decoder LMs, and knowledge-augmented agents. Our results show that more sophisticated LM and agentic approaches do not consistently outperform the strongest feature-based baseline. All model families struggle to identify zero awards and to calibrate high-award predictions, with further degradation on the Challenging test view, making ECtHR-NPD a challenging testbed for current state-of-the-art open-weight and proprietary LMs.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly adopted for compliance and legal reasoning tasks, yet their outputs often lack explicit grounding in legal logic and evidence. We present Code-as-Auditor, an LLM-based framework that extends the model's reasoning capability toward structured and evidence-grounded compliance assessment. The framework translates regulatory information into (1) formalized checklists and executable decision trees, encoding regulations and conditions as interpretable code structures. During inference, each checklist item is (2) dynamically expanded into factual and counterfactual questions, guiding the model to reason over case-specific evidence and potential violations. This process establishes a reasoning pipeline that proceeds from evidence identification, through rule application, to final decision-making, while a self-verification loop improves the logical consistency of the generated code and the traceability of outcomes. Experiments on privacy and data protection scenarios demonstrate that Code-as-Auditor delivers more accurate and evidence-backed evaluations, enabling automated compliance regulation checking grounded in explicit regulatory criteria.

In high-stakes domains such as legal practice, a language-model answer is only useful to the extent that a reader can verify each claim against the source the system cites. Current grounded-generation pipelines score the answer as a whole, so a correct conclusion can rest on fabricated or loosely matched citations and still score well. Closing this gap requires both a system built for per-claim verification and an evaluation that measures it. We introduce GANDR (Grounded ANswer DRafter), a two-agent system in which a Drafter writes an answer in a structured legal-reasoning format and a separate Critic, with the same view as a human verifier, audits each claim against its cited source and emits a per-claim audit trace on every round. We pair it with a strict correctness criterion requiring every citation to resolve to a passage the retriever returned. On a 185-item legal benchmark where all six systems share one backbone, one retrieval surface, and one citation instruction, GANDR ranks first on every primary metric, reaching 70.8% strict accuracy and leading the strongest baseline by 11.3 points (p<0.01). Reverting the protocol-anchored commit rule lowers strict accuracy by 22.7 points, and the strict lead stays positive on three further backbones, at +3.2 to +6.5 points. This lead traces to the Drafter configuration and the protocol-anchored commit, not to rewriting. Against two law-trained annotators the audit flags under-supported claims at F1 0.84 as a binary detector, while its four-way verdict labels agree only weakly and are advisory. Code is available upon request.

As large language models are increasingly deployed as tool-augmented legal agents, they introduce agentic hallucinations where tool-call and reasoning errors cascade into fabricated holdings and miscited authority. However, existing legal benchmarks evaluate only single-turn QA with outcome-level metrics, while agentic hallucination benchmarks lack legal-specific diagnostic capability. Neither answers to what extent and how a legal agent hallucinates along its trajectory. To address these limitations, we introduce LexAgentHallu, a legal agentic hallucination benchmark designed to evaluate to what extent and how legal agents fail along multi-step trajectories. Built through a four-stage expert-in-the-loop pipeline, LexAgentHallu contains 3414 instances across 17 legal categories and 6 task types. Each instance is annotated under a dual-layer hallucination taxonomy of 7 high-level categories and 27 fine-grained subclasses, covering both substantive errors and agent-procedural failures. We further design fine-grained metrics that quantify to what extent and localize how each failure occurs along an agent's execution path. Our evaluation across 18 proprietary and open-source agents uncovers a Right-Answer-Wrong-Reason effect and reveals that hallucination subclasses cluster rather than scatter, forming distinct agentic framework, legal task, and category profiles. These findings, invisible to outcome-level evaluation, validate the diagnostic power of LexAgentHallu for evaluating agentic hallucination in law.

Algorithmic outputs now populate the digital environments through which contemporary life is organized. The role of law in facilitating and constituting (rather than merely responding to) these processes is gaining increasing traction across scholarly accounts. This inquiry traces the evolution of algorithmic outputs attending to their legal underpinnings and social implications, surfacing the mutations of machine speech. The first mutation redefined speech as data to be queried: search engines transformed the web from a space of information retrieval into an economic regime of algorithmic visibility. The second mutation reframed speech as engagement: social media platforms fused moderation with amplification, turning expression into a metric of attention, governed by corporate architectures. The third mutation emerges in conversational systems and interfaces, where generative text displaces information retrieval, bringing with it dense technolegal entanglements and profound epistemic consequences. Scholars of freedom of expression, informational privacy, and communication studies have long grappled with these dynamics, yet their implications for broader legal thought have also become urgent. This piece seeks to organize and clarify the evolving debate around algorithmic speech, making this critical but often fragmented discourse more accessible to wider legal and interdisciplinary audiences. In doing so, it bridges the gap between observing technological transformation and critically assessing the constitutive role of law within it, offering a conceptual resource for researchers, students, policymakers, and practitioners navigating and contesting this evolving landscape.

A dense retriever encodes a question as one vector, but the question arrives one word at a time. We read 2,144 held-out headlines from Thu Vien Phap Luat (Vietnamese legal library) word by word with Nemotron-3-Embed 8B/1B and Qwen3-Embedding 8B/0.6B, encoding 65,444 prefixes against 20,034 articles, plus every prefix of 3,438 sub-questions from 1,112 multi-question headlines and of 168 answers. (i) The gold article becomes rank 1 after a median of 6-7 content words in every encoder, before the interrogative frame is read, and stays there to the end in 78-85% of cases. (ii) In a multi-question headline the lock is inside the first sub-question 94-98% of the time; the second leaves rank unchanged in 89-95%; encoded alone, the second reaches rank 1 in 42-58% vs 91-96% for the first, at the same lock word (95-97% identical). (iii) Numbers, dates and instrument identifiers move the embedding twice as far as content words and four times as far as interrogative words; 72-78% of steps move toward the gold article, and the closing interrogative frame moves against that direction in 95-99% of headlines. (iv) Rank/cosine clustering yields six archetypes (instant, typical, unstable, late, never-locking) that differ by legal area and form (chi-squared p < 1e-8): real-estate and litigation headlines never lock on a number; environmental and accounting headlines do so a third of the time. (v) An answer read word by word retrieves its article after 8-16 words and addresses the sub-questions in order asked in 83-89% of cases. (vi) A word's step keeps a consistent direction across headlines (cosine 0.25-0.33; 0.44-0.60 for numbers); a preceding question rotates that step by about 60 degrees and a greeting by about 30 degrees; steps shrink as i^{-0.8}; and a two-question headline is within 12-17 degrees of a linear mix of its two questions. We call this a context-modulated additive walk.

Land ownership in Bangladesh is recorded in Ana-Ganda-Kora-Kranti-Til, a base-16 positional fraction system with dedicated Unicode glyphs, no mainstream font, and no coverage in any OCR pipeline or tokenizer. The handwritten records that carry these fractions, RS Khatians, are the authoritative title record for millions of parcels and a frequent subject of civil litigation, yet no benchmark has asked whether a machine can read one. We introduce KhatianDoc, a four-task benchmark built from 107 real RS Khatian records from the Vumi (land) Office of Munshiganj, Bangladesh: symbol recognition, base-16-to-decimal conversion, structured field extraction, and legal document question answering over 1,634 QA pairs. Ground truth was transcribed by hand, verified by a land-law practitioner to full agreement, and anonymized through positional tokens that keep the referential distinctions multi-hop questions depend on. We evaluate six multimodal LLMs (8B to 72B+, open and closed) under a fixed zero-shot protocol. Five QA categories, 39.3% of our stratified set, return zero correct answers from every model; on the arithmetic task, every model that emits a number does worse than a constant-mean baseline, with exact- and near-match scores coinciding: decorrelation, not approximation. Auditing our own metrics surfaced two artifacts in opposite directions: we correct a refusal-scoring bug and report the fixed scores beside the originals, and flag an inflated metadata metric as an upper bound. KhatianDoc documents not a performance gap but the absence of a capability, with verified ground truth for future systems. Code and data, with a redacted image release, are publicly available.

Fine-tuning can improve legal question-answering accuracy without improving how models use law supplied in context. We study this distinction in bilingual Bangladeshi legal QA, where observed errors can arise from answer scoring, retrieval, or failure to use relevant law. We construct a hierarchy-preserving statutory corpus, 2,165 reviewed bilingual fine-tuning examples, and a 150-item supplied-law control. We evaluate six instruction-tuned models: Llama-3.2-1B, Llama-3.2-3B, Qwen3.5-0.8B, Qwen3.5-2B, Qwen3.5-4B, and Gemma-4-E2B, with three LoRA seeds per model. To separate effects, we combine constrained option-letter scoring, cyclic option rotation, and controlled removal of the governing provision. On 398 Bar Council outputs, an exact-line parser attributes an accuracy gain of 50.0% to the Qwen3.5-2B seed-42 adapter, whereas option scoring yields only $3.0\%$. For Gemma-4-E2B, the two scoring methods favor different systems. When the governing provision is guaranteed to be present, five of six reference models improve by $14.7\%-19.3\%$ under the four-order criterion. Removing that provision reduces accuracy by $8.0\%-15.3\%$ for models and by $13.8\%-14.9\%$ points for their adapters. However, difference-in differences estimates show no increase in reliance on the governing provision after fine-tuning. Results show that legal adaptation claims require separating scorer, retriever, and model effects. Our Code and data are available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/bangladesh-legal-qa-11E3

In 2023, a New York judge sanctioned two attorneys in Mata v. Avianca for filing a brief with hallucinated citations generated by ChatGPT. Such failures are largely caught by database lookups; the harder problem is detecting citations that point to real cases but do not support the propositions for which they are offered -- a failure mode that existing evaluations of LLMs for legal use cases largely overlook. In this paper, we study proposition-level citation support verification through controlled perturbations of real legal citations obtained from two legal corpora, either replacing the cited case or changing only the pinpoint page within the same case. We evaluate fourteen model configurations on the resulting examples. Models catch 93-100% of wrong-case corruptions. They catch only 37-61% of wrong-pinpoint corruptions on court opinions and 52-83% on legal briefs. When models fail to catch wrong-pinpoint corruptions, they accept the citation based on topical overlap rather than page-level support. Scale and extended reasoning narrow the gap but do not close it: GPT-5.4 with high reasoning effort still misses 40% of pinpoint mismatches on court opinions and 18% on briefs. Prompting the model to verify support at the cited page improves recall, but it also raises the false positive rate. Recognizing the right legal topic and verifying support for the cited proposition are distinct capabilities, and current models conflate them.

Two instruments of EU digital law place inference at their centre and mean different things by it. Article 3(1) of the AI Act uses the capability to infer constitutively: it is the central feature separating the regulated category from conventional software. The GDPR never defines inference, yet governs it protectively: the consequences follow from the processing of personal data and from what the inference says about, or does to, a person, whether or not the technology that produced it qualifies as an AI system. The two perimeters are not concentric. Their non-coincidence remained invisible in single-shot systems; agentic architectures make it operationally acute. The thesis: inferential capability does not determine legal scope, and its absence does not create immunity. The framework is two-level. Inference performs two legal functions, constitutive and protective; the protective function operates through three pathways - identificatory, attributive and decisional. Composition is not a fourth pathway but a cross-cutting architectural dimension which, with reach, persistence and reviewability, is what agentic architectures modify. Three concepts support it: the inferential threshold, the inferential reach and the inferential chain, mapped onto the chain of imputation. Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 left the constitutive criterion untouched and inserted a provision contemplating outputs that influence the inputs of future operations, without supplying any rule of aggregation. The article proposes an interpretive rule, a compositional-effects test identifying the decision unit under Article 22 GDPR together with the allocation of the burden of establishing it, and documentation duties calibrated to inference chains.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly mediate legal determinations over what human rights are realized, and how. Yet, no evaluation benchmark exists to assess whether they can reason correctly about human rights law. To this end, we report our efforts to develop a robust and scalable methodology for creating HumRightsBench: the first expert-validated, scenario-based benchmark for evaluating reasoning grounded in the obligation structure of international human rights law. We adapt the IRAC framework for legal reasoning to better suit the unique reasoning patterns of human rights work (substituting P, "proposing remedies," for C, "legal conclusion," yielding IRAP) to structure our evaluation heuristics. We also produce a pilot series of authentic scenarios designed to implicate the many dimensions of real-world human rights issues and annotated by human rights lawyers and professionals across the world. Ultimately, we find that model accuracy scores range considerably across legal reasoning tasks (overall model performance ranges from 0.339 to 0.577, task min-max ranges from 0.025 to 0.774), which strongly implies that HumRightsBench is a capable instrument for advancing this emerging subfield of AI evaluations science at a critical moment in its evolution.

We identify and quantify temporal misgrounding: the systematic retrieval and citation of the currently in-force version of a legal article when the applicable version is an earlier or future one. Standard legal RAG treats the corpus as static; we argue legal question answering is a temporally-indexed retrieval problem. We introduce FiscalQA Pro, pairing a versioned corpus of 32,436 article-versions of the French tax code (93 years, 1938-2031) with an all-model-hard temporal-reasoning track: 209 scored, expert-reviewed questions across 33 CGI articles (221 released; twelve flagged out of the answerable scope). At selection time, no evaluated model recovered its date-applicable answer closed-book in any of four sampling draws, and the currently in-force text lacks the gold value for all but one of the scored questions. Answers are scored deterministically via atomic ground-truth "nuggets" (regex and numeric-with-tolerance), never LLM-as-judge: an LLM judge would inherit the temporal bias it is meant to score. Across eleven models (five frontier closed-API systems plus Gemini 2.5 Pro as a substitute entry, and five open-weight), parametric knowledge yields 3.0% mean strict accuracy and RAG over a static current-version corpus 2.7%. Static RAG retrieves the date-applicable version 0% of the time, confidently citing a real but inapplicable version. Our end-to-end retriever over a multi-version index, with no oracle, reaches 98.3% mean strict; an oracle-article ablation reaches 99.1%, locating the residual gap in first-stage recall, not version selection. We additionally release a version-aware jurisprudence dataset of 69,208 citation links, together with the corpus, benchmark, model responses, and pipeline code.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong performance across a wide range of legal tasks. In legal practice, time is a critical concept that governs the validity of statutes, the progression of legal cases, and the enforcement of procedural deadlines. However, legal temporal capabilities remain underexplored in existing legal AI benchmarks. To address this gap, we propose LexKairos, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating the temporal capabilities of LLMs in the Chinese legal context across three dimensions: statutory temporal knowledge, case temporal modeling, and statute-case temporal reasoning. LexKairos comprises nine sub-tasks drawn from real-world Chinese judicial cases and statutes. We conduct systematic evaluations of eight LLMs under multiple inference settings, including vanilla, Chain-of-Thought (CoT), and thinking modes. Our results show that Gemini-3-Flash achieves the strongest overall performance, yet even the best-performing model exhibits notable limitations on tasks demanding precise time-sensitive statutory metadata recall or complex reasoning in time limits, indicating that legal temporal knowledge and reasoning remain open challenges for current LLMs. Data and code are available at https://github.com/thunlp/LexKairos.

Legal Statute Prediction (LSP) involves automatically identifying relevant legal statutes given factual descriptions in legal documents, typically framed as a multi-label classification task within natural language processing and information retrieval research. While recent advances have begun incorporating Large Language Models (LLMs) for statute prediction, current approaches primarily focus on accuracy metrics without addressing the critical need for legal reasoning, a fundamental requirement in judicial contexts where decisions must be explainable and justifiable. To address this research gap, we present PROSLEX (PRediction Of Statutes and LEgal eXplanation), a comprehensive dataset comprising 1,623 expert-annotated legal documents from the Indian context. Each document is paired with statute predictions and detailed explanations, totaling 7,450 explanations, capturing the underlying legal reasoning. Using this dataset, we systematically evaluate various prompting strategies, including zero-shot, few-shot, chain-of-thought, and tree-of-thoughts approaches, to generate both statute predictions and their corresponding legal rationales. Our evaluation framework measures not only predictive performance but also the coherence and legal validity of generated explanations, positioning PROSLEX as a benchmark for developing explainable AI systems that can support legal practitioners while advancing research in interpretable legal NLP. To ensure reproducibility, we have made our PROSLEX dataset and model code available on GitHub: https://github.com/subinay494/Legal_Statute_Prediction_Explanation.

Recent incidents involving Artificial Intelligence (AI) agents, which were reported escaping their containment `unintentionally' to gain unauthorized access, pose looming questions about who or what should be held legally responsible for resultant criminal or negligent damage. As the independent capabilities of agents expand, Promise Theory suggests a systematic method to resolve these questions, based on the Downstream Principle for causal influence. Responsibility can easily be expanded to include AI agents where tracing responsibility becomes impactical, and agents' freedoms to act can be limtied by policy choices.

Clinical foundation models trained on large-scale patient data are increasingly used for decision support, screening, and public health planning. As deployment expands, privacy risk arises from model-mediated leakage, yet its prevalence and severity remain poorly quantified. Models can disclose sensitive training artifacts, enabling patient re-identification in ways not captured by data-handling controls alone. As a result, existing frameworks, including HIPAA and GDPR, offer limited protection against assessing and addressing. We propose a practical framework for assessing privacy risk in clinical foundation models, illustrate realistic leakage scenarios across deployment settings, map them to legal regimes, and outline complementary technical and legal mitigations. Our analysis provides a context-aware risk assessment grounded in realistic usage to preserve the value of medical foundation models while rigorously safeguarding patient privacy.

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.

In this paper, we mainly concentrate on finding concepts or topics from the legal case proceedings, since adopting a structured representation for legal documents, as opposed to a mere bag-of-words flat text representation, can significantly enhance processing capabilities. To achieve this objective, we put forward a set of diverse concepts for legal case proceedings. With this motivation, we propose LeDA, a system for Legal Data Annotation. The system offers the generic functionality of annotating and adjudicating entities or concepts within documents via a web-based interface. A novel feature of our system is that it allows to dynamic create new tags for annotation, which is a particularly useful provision for situations where there exists no pre-defined ontology for the entities (concepts) that need to be annotated - these being rather discovered by annotators as they continue examining more documents. The system that we demonstrate is currently in use to annotate a set of concepts from legal documents to construct semantic representations of documents as bags of concepts that can then be used for several downstream tasks, such as prior case retrieval, judgment prediction, and so on. Along with the system features in general, we also describe how LeDA was used by 3 assessors to annotate and adjudicate legal concept names from Indian Supreme Court case proceedings.

This paper presents a set-theoretic formalization of the classical usuli method of al-Sabr wa al-Taqsim (Examination and Division) for extracting legal causes ('ilal) within closed chapters of jurisprudence. A computational algorithm is introduced that extracts minimal operational rules from a truth table of juristic verdicts. The principal result is that, given a complete truth table for a closed chapter, the algorithm computes the minimal structural generators of the ruling and eliminates all logically redundant attributes. The resulting structures constitute admissible candidate causes for subsequent juristic evaluation. The framework is conditional upon the availability of a finite school-relative concept vocabulary and a complete ruling table for the chapter under investigation.

Maintenance regulations are complex legal texts that are difficult to exploit when addressing a specific case and challenging to integrate into operational systems. This paper presents a two-stage LLM-assisted workflow for French maintenance regulations: ontology engineering from a SEMLEG-based core ontology, followed by construction of an ontology-grounded French legal knowledge graph. The first stage consists in the open extraction of typed entities and triples from a stratified corpus sample, the normalization of labels through embedding-based fusion, and the induction of candidate object properties with their signature (domain and range). The second stage uses the resulting ontology to guide the closed extraction of triples and RDF graph construction over the full corpus. Experiments with GPT-4.1 and mistral-large-2512 show robust structured outputs, near-complete class alignment, and a substantial reduction of duplicated entities and predicates after fusion. Fewer than 20% of triples introduce unseen properties, while lower exact signature compliance reveals new domain-range combinations for existing predicates. These results point to predicate normalization and the validation of newly observed relation signatures as key refinement steps for industrial maintenance settings.

International recruitment in France requires navigating a layered legal framework absent from existing legal AI benchmarks. We present a publicly available benchmark and first comparative evaluation for this domain, covering permit-type recommendation, required-document retrieval, and legal citation coverage. Comparing a parametric LLM baseline against dense retrieval augmentation at two model scales (Qwen3.5-9B and -27B) on 52 annotated synthetic profiles, we find that retrieval improves administrative guidance at both scales, most notably permit-type accuracy. Our results confirm that retrieval grounding is important for more reliable administrative guidance in this domain, and motivate further investigation of hybrid retrieval strategies.

In the United States, artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly deployed amid limited federal regulation. With courts become a recurring forum in which AI-related practices are scrutinized, it is important to empirically understand the AI litigation landscape to date. We address this gap through a systematic review of 559 U.S. federal court opinions in which AI plays a role in the parties' contentions, taxonomizing (1) common topics of dispute, (2) the AI technologies implicated, and (3) the parties involved, including common plaintiff and defendant types. We identify seven recurring dispute areas, six categories of AI technologies at the center of litigation, and four types of common litigants, alongside legal doctrines used by the litigants. A comparison of this taxonomy to the AI Incident Database revealed substantial gaps in coverage, definitions, and prevalence between documented and litigated harms, suggesting courts capture only part of the AI risk landscape. In addition, we found that court decisions primarily rely on pre-existing legal doctrines to manage AI rather than making new AI-specific laws, producing a form of "piecemeal" AI governance. As a result, federal court outcomes are shaped less by where AI has caused harms and more by which harms are cognizable under existing statutes, leading to certain AI harms remaining unresolved.

A small language model can receive the governing statutory provision and still answer incorrectly. We test whether fine-tuning on examples containing relevant law improves later use of retrieved law. We curate 2{,}165 bilingual QA records from six Bangladeshi acts and three schedules, then fine-tune Qwen3.5 at 0.8B, 2B, and 4B. Evaluation uses the 2022 and 2023 Bangladesh Bar Council exams in Bangla and machine-translated English, with no retrieval, BM25, or FAISS, scored by strict consistency over three seeded runs. At 0.8B, fine-tuning raises the 2022 English FAISS score from 2 to 34 of 100. Gains at 0.8B and 2B survive paired testing, but the 4B model has no detectable net gain: Bangla improves while several English conditions regress. Fine-tuning also reduces answers that drift from Bangla into mostly English from 44.0--53.2% to 0.2--0.7%, with adjusted $p<.001$ at every scale. Retrieval quality is therefore not the only bottleneck. Small bilingual legal models also differ in how they use supplied law and whether they answer in the requested language. The dataset is publicly available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/momahadi/bangladesh-legal-qa-dataset.

Long-form legal research reports increasingly rely on LLMs and agentic research systems, but their reliability depends not only on answering the task, but also on whether cited legal authorities are trustworthy. A citation can be risky even when it points to a real source: the report may omit limiting conditions, misdescribe the authority, or use it to support a stronger claim than the source allows. We introduce LegalCiteTrust, a benchmark for evaluating citation trustworthiness in Chinese long-form legal research reports. It contains 72 densely annotated report-level tasks and evaluates reports along three dimensions: Coverage, Support, and Citation Trustworthiness. Citation Trustworthiness is operationalized through citation-level Existence, Fidelity, and Applicability (E/F/A). Experiments on general-purpose LLMs, deep-research systems, and legal-specific systems show that task completion, evidence richness, citation density, and citation reliability expose different system behaviors. Retrieval tools can improve evidence support without reliably improving the Trust score, while E/F/A-based revision improves Trust and Final score more clearly than existence-only filtering. These results suggest that trustworthy legal research generation requires citation-aware evidence governance after retrieval: systems must not only retrieve legal authorities, but also select, describe, and apply them reliably.

This comprehensive study introduces an advanced Artificial Intelligence for Indian Legal Question Answering (AILQA) system tailored to the Indian legal context. AILQA leverages a variety of embedding and generative models, including recent Large Language Models (LLMs), to address the unique challenges posed by the intricate and diverse nature of Indian legal texts and to enhance the accuracy and reliability of responses to legal questions. We conducted rigorous evaluations using both lexical and semantic metrics, enriched by expert legal feedback, to ensure relevance and accuracy. Our findings underscore the effectiveness of the Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) paradigm in improving answer quality, particularly in complex legal domains. Additionally, we assessed performance on standardized tests such as the All India Bar Examination (AIBE), thereby providing a robust benchmark for practical applications. Under the study's evaluation protocol, some AI-generated responses received higher ratings than the available reference answers, particularly when they contained accurate and relevant supporting details. This finding is specific to the evaluated dataset and rating criteria and should not be interpreted as evidence that the models generally outperform qualified legal professionals. We also discuss the challenges encountered, such as the need for precise context and the risks of model hallucination, and propose directions for future research to further refine AI capabilities in the legal field. This study aims to pave the way for enhanced legal decision-support systems, making them more accessible and effective for legal professionals and the public alike.

Bürger et al.\ (2024) demonstrated that truth representations in large language models are universal across statement polarity but reside within a multidimensional subspace. The truth value of a statement is linearly readable from a residual stream of language model, but it is not clear how much of that representation fits on a single direction, which component builds it, or what it is made of. We conducted a study based on these questions, with one instrument: a training-free axis, the dominant direction of the singular value decomposition (SVD) of hidden-state differences over true/false minimal pairs, identified without labels up to one global sign. Extensive evaluation across 14 models from 6 diverse architectural families (including MoE), read and extract at cost $O(d)$ per token. We close with a pre-registered prediction on whether the arrangement extends to categories whose truth is computed rather than retrieved.

This paper presents the methodologies and results of the NOWJ team's participation across all five tasks of the COLIEE 2026 competition. For Task 1 (Legal Case Retrieval), we propose a four-stage pipeline comprising candidate filtering, dense retrieval with complementary embedding models, cross-encoder reranking via fine-tuned generative rerankers and MLP-based pairwise classification, and adaptive per-query cutoff prediction. For Task 2 (Legal Case Entailment), we combine BM25 filtering, T5-based reranking, and LLM-based entailment verification with consensus ensemble. For Task 3 (Statute Law Retrieval and Entailment), we adopt a retrieval-augmented generation framework with dense retrieval, attention-based reranking, and few-shot-prompted LLM reasoning. For Task 4 (Legal Textual Entailment), we introduce a dynamic routing pipeline that classifies query difficulty and dispatches cases to either a balanced few-shot solver or a structured zero-shot chain-of-thought solver. For the Pilot Task (Legal Judgment Prediction), we combine hierarchical transformers with CRF layers, argument relation mining, and probabilistic argumentation graph reasoning.

Legal information processing spans retrieval, entailment and judgment prediction problems, requiring text matching, reasoning and robust generalisation with limited supervision. We report Team DU's participation in all five tasks of COLIEE 2026, using open-weight systems for legal case retrieval, case entailment, statute retrieval and entailment, and legal judgment prediction. For Tasks 3 and 4, all models predate the 15 July 2025 cutoff required by the rules. For Task 4 (statute entailment), a cross-architecture ensemble of nine models from three families achieves 96.3% accuracy, placing first among 33 submissions from 11 teams. For the Pilot Task (tort prediction and rationale extraction), a multi-view system combining five claim-level models and refining the verdict using features derived from the claim predictions achieves 73.1% TP accuracy and 68.2% RE F1 as an unofficial submission, scoring above all official entries on TP and matching the highest on RE. For Task 2 (legal case entailment), changing only the prompt from single- to multi-selection raises F1 from 0.343 to 0.555 in post-competition evaluation on released gold labels, exceeding the best official submission (F1 = 0.490). For Task 3 (statute retrieval and entailment), replacing the entailment model with Qwen3-235B and a structured legal reasoning prompt raises accuracy from 79.3% to 91.5% in post-competition analysis. For Task 1 (legal case retrieval), a learning-to-rank system combining lexical and semantic retrieval with structural, citation authority, and temporal features (34 in total) achieves F1 = 0.314 (rank 11 of 54 submissions from 22 teams). Overall, legal information processing benefits from different inductive biases across tasks, with cross-architecture ensembling, feature-based reranking and retrieval-augmented prompting each proving most effective in different settings.

Organizations and regulators increasingly consult large language models (LLMs) for regulatory-compliance questions, yet a wrong statutory citation can silently propagate into legal advice, compliance documentation, and policy decisions. We introduce a bilingual benchmark of 120 questions probing whether freely accessible LLMs fabricate article citations for two data-protection instruments: the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Saudi Personal Data Protection Law (PDPL). The benchmark pairs direct citation retrieval questions with false premise verification probes and deliberately unanswerable "trap" questions -- including questions about a repealed article and about deadlines that exist only in implementing regulations, not in the law itself. Every question is posed in both Arabic and English, and all scoring is fully automatic against a manually verified gold reference. Evaluating three freely accessible models (Gemini 2.5 Flash, GPT-OSS-120B, Nemotron-3-Super-120B), we find a dramatic jurisdiction gap: near-ceiling citation accuracy on the GDPR (94-100% on direct retrieval) against majority fabrication on the Saudi PDPL (60-77%), invariant to query language; the highest fabrication rates (67%) arise from statute-vs-regulations confusion, and 91% of fabricated citations are asserted with confidence >= 0.8. Fabrication tracks the jurisdiction of the law, not the language of the query, and model confidence provides no protection -- indicating that verbatim-verification safeguards, rather than model self confidence, must gate any institutional reliance on LLMs for compliance screening.

Statute retrieval is a fundamental task in legal information retrieval, yet existing approaches struggle to bridge the gap between colloquial legal queries and formal statutory language. In this paper, we propose GCSR, a generative statute retrieval framework that reformulates statute retrieval as a sequence generation problem and internalizes statutory knowledge into a generative model. Specifically, we propose a multi-granularity structured docid that encodes legal hierarchy and semantic information, together with a multi-task training strategy. Experiments show that GCSR consistently outperforms strong sparse, dense, and legal-domain baselines. Our results demonstrate the effectiveness of generative retrieval for statute retrieval and highlight its potential for broader legal information access and downstream legal reasoning tasks.

Patent claim drafting is a challenging legal drafting task that requires technical expertise, precise linguistic control, strict adherence to formal conventions, and the preservation of complex logical relationships among claim elements. While Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has been widely used to improve the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs), recent evidence suggests that its benefits may be limited, or even negative, in highly structured or pattern-sensitive tasks. Therefore, this paper investigates whether CoT prompting benefits patent claim generation. We propose a task-specific CoT method for patent claim generation and evaluate its effectiveness through both automatic metrics and human expert assessment. Our results show that reasoning-enhanced prompting can improve claim quality. Moreover, we demonstrate a counter-intuitive but important empirical finding: implicit CoT, where reasoning is kept internal rather than explicitly verbalized, consistently outperforms explicit CoT. Through systematic analysis, we show that explicit CoT can introduce an unnecessary information bottleneck for claim generation. Verbalized reasoning may compromise the quality of final outputs through three specific mechanisms: abstraction of critical details, disruption of internalized generation patterns, and cascading error propagation. Our findings provide new insights into legal tasks and CoT applications.

Answering questions over a set of transactional legal documents is most simply done by injecting the whole corpus into the LLM's context window on every query. That baseline maximises retrieval recall, but its token footprint scales with the corpus rather than the question, and long-context degradation scales with it. We report what it took to replace full-corpus injection in a legal-document analysis system, comparing it against two structured retrieval modes over our proprietary structure-aware chunking: embedding retrieval (NAVEMBED) and LLM navigation over a compact structured index (NAVINDEX). On a 20-question benchmark with verified ground-truth answers, a position-bias-controlled, reference-anchored pairwise judge scored semantic retrieval with reranking tied with injection on 16 of 18 document-bound questions (injection preferred on 2) while attending to 17.3x fewer input tokens (a general-text-embedding (GTE) configuration reaches 29.9x at a lower tie rate); both modes were judged tied on the 2 out-of-scope controls. NAVINDEX was judged tied on all 18 at a 1.61x smaller total token footprint, a ~56x smaller answering context, and 25% lower dollar cost. We derive a closed-form caching-crossover rule: cached injection is cheaper in dollars only while the corpus stays below roughly ten times the retrieval payload. Scope and uncertainty are quantified in Section 8.

AI systems are increasingly used to provide legal advice, raising questions about whether laypeople accept guidance from algorithms--especially when that advice is legally correct but socially controversial. We report a preregistered survey experiment with 3,348 adults in mainland China examining how people evaluate identical legal advice when it is attributed either to an AI system or to a human lawyer, and when it is accompanied by reasoning or not. Contrary to expectations of algorithm aversion, attribution to an AI system has no net effect on perceived reasonableness. However, mediation analyses reveal opposing psychological pathways underlying this null result. AI-attributed advice is perceived as more objective, which increases perceived reasonableness, but also as less comprehensive and less attentive to special circumstances, which decreases perceived reasonableness. By contrast, providing legal reasoning substantially increases perceived reasonableness regardless of source, largely by enhancing perceptions of objectivity. Qualitative responses corroborate this tension between objectivity and contextual sensitivity in evaluations of legal advice. Together, these findings suggest that public responses to AI legal advisors are shaped not by rigid attitudes toward automation, but by the balancing of competing normative expectations. The results have implications for theories of algorithm aversion and the design of AI recommendation systems in normatively salient domains.

Generative AI (GenAI) systems store and process client data in three distinct ways: in the model's parameters through training and memorisation, in the context window during a live session, and in knowledge databases for retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). Each mode creates different and often counter-intuitive risks to confidentiality and legal professional privilege, and each calls for specific governance responses. Drawing on the first English and American decisions to address privilege and generative AI, UK and Munir v Secretary of State for the Home Department and United States v Heppner, on the orthodox privilege authorities against which those decisions must be read, and on recent computer science research, we explain the three modes of data storage and processing in terms accessible to practitioners and analyse the legal consequences of each. We then situate the analysis within the regulatory framework governing solicitors in England and Wales and within the ordinary principles of professional negligence, arguing that the standard of effective information governance (and with it the benchmark against which negligence and misconduct will be measured) is changing. Although we write primarily for SRA-regulated practitioners, our data-governance analysis is framed to extend to any jurisdiction in which the protection of privilege or professional secrecy depends on demonstrable confidentiality. The ultimate aim of this article is to help legal services professionals understand salient data leakage risks in GenAI systems and thereby facilitate a more responsible deployment of GenAI on client data and other sensitive material.

We present an automated pipeline that decomposes Italian tax-court judgments into individual legal issues and extracts, for each issue, a structured XML representation grounded in the IRAC framework and the legal syllogism. The pipeline targets a corpus of approximately $330{,}000$ first- and second-instance decisions of the Italian tax courts and is built around a capable yet cost-efficient general-purpose model (DeepSeek V3), a choice driven by the need to process several hundred thousand documents at a sustainable cost. To address the well-documented unreliability of large language models on legal citations, we couple the extraction step with an automatic hallucination-detection filter that compares the references produced by the model with those identified in the judgment text by a dedicated parser (Linkoln), normalised to standard identifiers (URN-NIR, ECLI, CELEX). We validate the pipeline on $50$ judgments annotated by two PhDs in tax law, computing inter-annotator agreement and LLM-vs-expert agreement on both issue extraction and legal citations, together with a stand-alone evaluation of the hallucination filter. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first issue-level, expert-validated structured extraction pipeline with hallucination control for Italian tax-court decisions, and it provides a concrete starting point for downstream applications such as issue-level retrieval, citation-network analysis, and the construction of large-scale datasets of legal reasoning.

Artificial Intelligence is increasingly applied to the field of law, and has the potential to increase access to justice. One particular movement that is gaining traction is that of agentic AI, wherein AI agents, based on Large Language Models (LLMs) can take autonomous actions. In particular, multi-agent approaches in the legal domain remain largely unexplored. In this paper, we investigate multi-agent deliberation methods for legal reasoning tasks using LLMs. We explore multi-agent deliberation (MAD) and introduce two novel multi-agent frameworks inspired by courtroom procedures and legal argumentation. Our experiments on both legal and non-legal benchmarks reveal that multi-agent frameworks achieve comparable overall performance to baseline large language models, but produce significantly distinct answers. Notably, these approaches can successfully solve cases that the baseline fails to address, and vice versa. We conduct a qualitative evaluation and highlight scenarios where multi-agent frameworks outperform monolithic approaches. For example, multi-agent approaches appear better suited for answering questions that require critical thinking from multiple perspectives. Our work positions multi-agent systems as a promising direction for AI in the legal domain, while demonstrating the potential of law-inspired multi-agent approaches for deliberation.

We investigate domain adaptation of modern BERT models in the legal domain. We further pre-train ModernBERT on all US court opinions using the masked language modeling objective. Although ModernBERT has been trained on roughly 500x more data than original BERT, we still find that this model benefits from further pre-training and domain adaptation in the legal domain: we report significant improvements compared to vanilla ModernBERT on all datasets connected to US court opinions. We find gains similar to those reported in early work on domain adaptation of BERT-like models. However, from scratch pre-training does not match the performance of further pre-training an existing ModernBERT checkpoint in our experiments. The resulting models are capable of processing sequences up to 8,192 tokens, and can be used to compute meaningful embeddings of legal passages, or could quickly rerank hundreds of legal passages for a given search query. We release all model checkpoints publicly.

While the validity of LLMs' use in the legal context remains subject to ethical and legal debate, legal professionals are already experimenting with personal LLMs, if only for translation and reformulation. However, even such a seemingly innocuous use can introduce biases through case processing speed if LLM assistants selectively refuse assistance on certain topics. To better anticipate such biases, we investigate several modern small LLMs that are most likely to be used as on-device assistants, to assess the impact of overrefusal on legal prompts. Surprisingly, we find that authority-style prefixes (you are acting as an assistant of the national supreme court'', [...] defense lawyer'') systematically increase refusal rates by 2--20x over the no-prefix baseline, while a known role-play jailbreak prefix shows mixed effects, sharply increasing refusals in some models and barely shifting them in others. The finding suggests that small on-prem deployable LLMs are unstable under contextual framings that a real institutional user might naturally introduce, and further investigation is essential to minimize opportunities for bias.

Attorneys, judges, and pro se filers increasingly use AI to draft legal documents, yet these tools frequently fabricate citations. Despite predictions that newer models would hallucinate less or that court sanctions would deter negligent filers, we found over 1,000 filings containing fabricated citations -- with this number growing year-over-year. This study evaluates whether AI-based systems can mitigate these errors by automatically detecting hallucinations. We propose a taxonomy of legal citation hallucinations grounded in actual court filings and introduce a dataset of 1,300 brief excerpts containing injected errors. Benchmarking five models in agentic and non-agentic settings reveals that while the latest iterations perform better -- GPT-5 achieves 82.8% recall and a 60.5% F1 score in an agentic framework -- all models struggle with subtle error categories. Agentic verification remains resource-intensive, with GPT-5 averaging 16.9 steps per excerpt. Furthermore, restricted information access limits the efficacy of even the best agents. This gap creates policy concerns, as it disadvantages both AI systems and litigants who lack subscriptions to commercial legal databases. Together, our dataset, tools, and policy recommendations provide a foundation for building and auditing reliable legal citation checking tools.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being adopted in the legal domain. However, despite their strong performance, LLMs are prone to generating incorrect or hallucinated outputs, raising serious concerns about their reliability in high-stakes domains such as law. Detecting the correctness of responses of LLM-based systems is therefore a critical challenge. In this work, we explore the potential of leveraging internal artifacts of LLM to detect the correctness of their predictions in legal-domain classification tasks. We develop approaches that utilize features derived from these internal artifacts to build downstream classifiers capable of identifying incorrect LLM outputs. We evaluate our approach on two representative legal classification tasks: bail decision prediction and statute violation prediction. Our experimental results demonstrate that LLMs' internal artifacts are reliable indicators for detecting incorrect predictions in legal classification tasks, and can be applied to enhance the reliability of LLM-based classification systems.

Autonomous Large Language Model (LLM) agents are increasingly deployed in electronic discovery (e-discovery), where compounding errors across multi-step reasoning chains can constitute legal malpractice. Unlike single-turn retrieval, agentic workflows operating over privileged document corpora exhibit a class of failure we term "trajectory collapse": an early misclassification silently propagates, rendering an entire privilege review invalid. This paper makes three contributions. First, we propose a structured taxonomy of agentic failures in legal information retrieval, organized by functional stage. Second, we introduce a four-layer verification architecture -- spanning planning, reasoning, execution, and uncertainty quantification -- designed to intercept these failures before they compound. Third, we present a preliminary simulation study on a synthetic e-discovery corpus that demonstrates how mandatory Human-on-the-Loop (HOTL) escalation thresholds reduce privilege-waiver risk relative to fully autonomous baselines. Our results suggest that calibrated uncertainty thresholds can reduce privilege-waiver risk by up to 61% versus fully autonomous deployment, while routing fewer than one quarter of documents to attorney review.

Court proceedings contain valuable evidence about human smuggling networks, but this information is often buried within unstructured, jargon-heavy legal documents. While large language models (LLMs) can support knowledge graph construction through automated information extraction, existing approaches rely on general-purpose models that are not tailored to the entity and relationship definitions required in this domain. We introduce FineREX, a streamlined knowledge graph construction pipeline built around a fine-tuned LLM for named entity recognition and relationship extraction (NER-RE). Using a manually annotated dataset of $512$ text chunks, FineREX achieves absolute improvements of 15.50% and 31.46% in entity and relationship F1-score, respectively, compared to a larger general-purpose baseline. These gains translate into higher-quality knowledge graphs, reducing legal noise by nearly half and lowering node duplication on long documents from 17.78% to 11.17%. By eliminating document rewriting and redundant extraction stages, FineREX also reduces end-to-end processing time by 50.0%. Our results demonstrate that domain-specific fine-tuning can substantially outperform larger general-purpose models while improving both the quality and efficiency of knowledge graph construction for illicit network analysis.

Civil litigation is inherently a life-cycle process: what a lawyer drafts on day one constrains what unfolds at trial months later. Yet existing legal benchmarks evaluate isolated subtasks, and prior legal-agent simulators reinitialize each scenario from shared ground truth, leaving cross-stage causal dependencies unmodeled. We present LegalWorld, a life-cycle interactive environment that models Chinese civil litigation as a causally connected state chain of five stages (seven sub-scenarios), grounded in 75,309 paired Chinese civil judgments. We pair it with reusable infrastructure (local memory, global case memory, a Skill/Tool library) that keeps each dispute consistent across its full life cycle. Building on this environment, we construct LongJud-Bench to evaluate agent capability across all five connected stages. 18,992 ratings from 217 legal-background evaluators confirm that LegalWorld trajectories are procedurally faithful and role-consistent; and a capability-level cross-model evaluation reveals sharp divergences that aggregate scores cannot expose, with no single backbone leading across consultation, drafting, and courtroom advocacy. Detailed resources will be released publicly.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive capabilities across diverse tasks, yet their performance on jurisdiction-specific legal reasoning remains underexplored. We present TW-LegalBench that utilizes Taiwanese legal system's rich official corpus open to the public to fill the gap in evaluating LLMs on Taiwanese law, among common-law benchmarks that focus on English sources and civil-law benchmarks focusing on sources of Simplified Chinese. TW-LegalBench comprises three task types: (1) over 16,000 multiple-choice questions (MCQs) across five years of official examinations in 18 professional domains; (2) 117 open-ended essay questions (OEQs) from examinations for legal professionals with official scoring rubrics; and (3) more than 14,000 legal judgment prediction (LJP) instances covering hundreds of crime categories. We evaluate 13 LLMs using accuracy for MCQs, a decomposed LLM-as-Judge framework based on the scoring rubric points for OEQs, and metrics for sentencing accuracy and statute citation for LJP. Our results reveal that top-performing models exceed the passing threshold for qualified lawyers (passing rate: 11%) but fall short of that for judges and prosecutors (passing rate: 1~2%). For LJP, while models demonstrate reasonable verdict type accuracy and sentence prediction capability, they struggle to cite exact legal articles. These findings highlight that reliable legal text generation remains challenging for LLMs, even though their performance on qualification examinations approaches human level.

Large language models now produce legal text of at least median quality, yet no existing benchmark can evaluate whether they perform doctrinal legal reasoning, which forms the interpretive core of legal work, rather than the ancillary, paralegal tasks that most current legal-AI evaluations measure. This measurement gap is not only methodological but legal: the EU AI Act makes "appropriate accuracy" a binding requirement for high-risk AI used in the judicial domain, yet that requirement cannot acquire operational content without the very doctrinal-reasoning benchmark the field lacks.

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.

Legal AI benchmark research frequently invokes the assumption that large language models can improve access to justice, including for people who cannot access lawyers in order to understand and exercise their legal rights. We argue that current benchmarks are not equipped to support this assumption because they evaluate legal reasoning over inputs that have already been preprocessed by legal experts, which measures the upper bound of model performance. Access to justice depends on a lower bound: how models perform when inputs come from pro se litigants, whose prompts may contain noisy narratives, buried facts, omissions, folk-legal assumptions, and surface-level errors. These degradations are comparable to conditions under which LLMs are known to degrade in the general machine learning literature, including long-context sensitivity, underspecification, hallucination, and typographical perturbations. We connect evidence from pro se literature with this body of machine learning research and present a small perturbation experiment on LEXam, a legal benchmark, to illustrate the gap between these two bounds. If model development continues to focus on benchmarks that measure only the upper bound, this gap may remain hidden or even widen. We conclude by calling for legal benchmarks that directly measure robustness under pro se-like inputs so that access-to-justice claims about legal AI can become empirically testable.

Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve strong performance on reasoning tasks, but whether this reflects faithful logical inference or heuristic approximation remains unclear. We study this question in legal entailment by comparing three paradigms, including pure LLM classification, LLM-based Formal Reasoning, and solver-based Formal Reasoning using the Z3 SMT solver, on a re-annotated subset of ContractNLI across five LLMs. Our re-annotation reveals a systematic and measurable gap between pragmatic legal interpretation and strict formal entailment, where a substantial proportion of legally sound inferences are not formally grounded without additional unstated assumptions. While introducing formal structure improves accuracy, with LLM-based Formal Reasoning achieving the highest benchmark performance, we show that this gain does not imply faithful reasoning. We identify three recurring failure modes: scope laundering, where LLMs report solver-inconsistent classifications without executing the underlying formal reasoning, producing conclusions that appear logically grounded but are not; implicit constraint blindness, where LLMs overlook logical constraints present in formal representations; and program synthesis failures, where LLMs generate incorrect Z3 code despite structured prompting. Critically, scope laundering persists across all models, raising serious concerns about the faithfulness of LLM-based formal reasoning as a proxy for symbolic execution. These results reveal a fundamental gap between benchmark accuracy and logical faithfulness.

We presented a neuron-level analysis of legal-domain reasoning in LLMs, comparing it with other applied domain tasks across seven open-weight models. Using neuron attribution scores to rank and suppress influential neurons, we confirmed that suppressing the identified neurons collapses accuracy on the target task, whereas suppressing the same number of random neurons does not. We further found a small subset of neurons influential across all seven tasks; once these are removed, suppressing the remaining neurons degrades only the task they were identified from, revealing genuinely task-specific neurons in every model studied. Within the legal domain, the three benchmarks exhibit relatively high neuron overlap and tend to be affected jointly, suggesting of legal components neurons that span jurisdictions. The distribution of identified neurons in our experiments suggests that the hypothesis that influential neurons are concentrated in middle MLP layers may depend on the input format and content, rather than being a universal phenomenon.

Lawyer-client consultation is a critical starting point for legal services. Effective legal assistance hinges on eliciting sufficient and truthful information from clients in order to devise strategies that best protect their interests. This task requires Large Language Models (LLMs) not only to perform robust legal reasoning, but also to strategically elicit material facts through multi-turn interactions and effectively guide clients with diverse personalities. Yet existing legal benchmarks overlook this interactive capability. To fill this gap, we introduce DLawBench, a diagnostic benchmark for real-world legal consultation. Drawing on realistic client behavior, we characterize lawyer-client interactions into four types: Cooperative, Dependent, Withdrawn, and Adversarial. Using dialogues grounded in real cases, DLawBench evaluates whether LLMs can effectively conduct legal consultation under realistic conditions. DLawBench comprises 461 cases from Chinese and U.S. law, 5,532 paired fact entries, 3,411 inquiry rubrics, and 3,348 issue-resolution rubrics, and evaluates 26 representative LLMs. Systematic experiments show substantial headroom: the best-performing model, GPT-5.5, achieves only 0.562 on consultation-grounded legal reasoning. More importantly, DLawBench exposes both sycophancy in legal consultation and a paradox: models perform worse when clients need guidance most.

This paper presents the participation of team PSL in the QIAS 2026 Shared Task on Arabic Islamic inheritance reasoning. The task evaluates the ability of large language models to solve inheritance cases that require legal interpretation, multi-step reasoning, and precise numerical computation. We compare \textit{commercial} and \textit{open-source} models under a unified prompting strategy to assess their effectiveness in structured legal reasoning with minimal task-specific adaptation. \ Our results show a clear gap in reliability between the two model families. Commercial models demonstrate stronger performance in identifying eligible heirs, applying exclusion rules, and maintaining consistency across reasoning steps. In contrast, open-source models exhibit greater instability, particularly in cases involving dependent legal decisions and fractional share adjustments. The best performance is achieved by \textit{Gemini 2.5 Flash}, with an MRE of $0.989$.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has become a standard architectural response to unreliability in legal AI, yet high-profile failures, including fabricated citations submitted to courts and anachronistic legal content presented as current, continue to appear across jurisdictions. We argue that these failures are not residual confabulations to be eliminated by scaling language models, but symptoms of an architectural mismatch between probabilistic retrieval and the hierarchical, temporal, and institutional structure of legal knowledge. We develop the argument in three moves. First, we articulate the ontological commitment of legal knowledge as a triad of properties derivable from classical legal theory: hierarchical and mereological structure, diachronic dynamism under operational closure, and causal traceability of institutional provenance grounded in the duty of justification. Second, we identify three corresponding pathologies of retrieval (mereological blindness, diachronic blindness, and causal opacity), each developed with an operational definition, a failure mechanism, a canonical example, and detection criteria for diagnostic use. Third, we review the state of the art through this lens, showing that existing approaches address these requirements unevenly and do not yet compose into a paradigm that treats them as co-constitutive. From this analysis we derive four architectural commitments that characterize the deterministic-by-design direction for legal retrieval: ontological primacy, event reification, bitemporal correctness, and deterministic interaction protocols. The framework concerns quaestio juris (which norms apply and in what state) rather than the downstream tasks that act on identified norms, and addresses legislative and constitutional retrieval primarily, with interpretive time as an explicit extension.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to real-world legal tasks, evaluating the reliability of their open-ended legal responses has become essential. These tasks require context-sensitive answers and allow little room for error, motivating fine-grained and diagnostic evaluation that can identify specific sources of response quality failures. We introduce LexRubric, a rubric-based benchmark for evaluating open-ended Chinese legal tasks. LexRubric contains 649 instances from legal consultation and judicial examination, which reflect both everyday legal needs and professional legal reasoning and cover 14 legal scenarios. It further includes 12,337 expert-written atomic scoring criteria organized under a unified six-dimensional framework, enabling accurate evaluation and diagnostic analysis across tasks and evaluation dimensions. To validate the reliability of the evaluation, we test multiple judge models and compare model-based judgments with human judgments. We further evaluate 18 recent general and legal-domain LLMs on LexRubric. Results show that different models exhibit distinct capability profiles, and that open-ended legal tasks remain challenging for current LLMs. Data is available at: https://github.com/foggpoy/LexRubric.

Large language models (LLMs) now solve a wide range of expert-level exams at or above human level, yet remain brittle on specialised, evidence-intensive domains such as law. On these tasks, errors arise not only from gaps in world knowledge but also from subtle distinctions between pieces of evidence and inconsistent use of supporting evidence. The most common aggregator over sampled chain-of-thought (CoT) traces, majority vote, returns the most popular answer regardless of whether its evidence is actually strongest. We propose to treat the selection of CoT reasoning fragments into a set of evidence as an explicit combinatorial optimisation problem, allowing well-supported but minority hypotheses to override noisy majorities, and to evaluate the approach on legal-reasoning benchmarks that are particularly sensitive to evidence quality. We introduce EP-HUBO (Evidence Pool Higher-Order Binary Optimisation), which generates multiple CoT traces with a small local model, parses fragments into per-hypothesis evidence pools, solves a higher-order unconstrained binary optimisation per pool with quality-derived weights (relevance, specificity, distinctiveness), and delegates a single adjudication call per question to a frontier model. We evaluate EP-HUBO on two evidence-intensive legal benchmarks using both simulated annealing on classical hardware and the Dirac-3 photonic entropy-quantum machine from Quantum Computing Inc. HUBO-style optimisation gives a principled way to aggregate reasoning fragments while preserving minority-but-correct hypotheses, and is most valuable in low-contamination domains where frontier models have not already absorbed the benchmark material.

As agents grow more capable, legal-domain LLM agents promise to turn document-heavy matters into reviewable work products -- yet reliable deployment faces three obstacles: no large-scale evidence on how today's strongest model-and-harness combinations behave on end-to-end legal matters; no agent architecture adapted to the legal vertical, only general-purpose harnesses; and, in a setting that keeps shifting with new facts, authorities, and deadlines, no mechanism for systems to learn from their own outcomes. We address each. A large-scale empirical study on Harvey LAB -- $12{,}510$ agent trajectories -- shows that even frontier agents remain far from completing matters in a single pass: per-criterion accuracy climbs with stronger models while strict matter completion stalls. We then introduce \textsc{Parthenon}, a self-evolving legal-agent framework that factors Model, Harness, Agent roles, legal Knowledge, deterministic Tools, and procedural Skills into auditable surfaces for source traceability, date and number grounding, deliverable compliance, and issue closure. Finally, an anti-leakage learning loop converts scored failures into task-agnostic edits to skills, tools, and knowledge, letting the system improve with experience -- as a firm refines its checklists and playbooks after each matter -- without touching model weights. Across our large-scale empirical analysis, \textsc{Parthenon} substantially improves the performance of state-of-the-art models and harnesses on legal-matter tasks.

Retrieval-augmented generation systems for legal question answering typically retrieve passages based on semantic similarity and provide them to a language model, which then generates cited answers. Prior work assumes that highly ranked passages are most likely to be usefully cited by the model. Perturbation-based attribution methods, such as C-LIME, have been used exclusively for post-hoc explanation. However, on the AQuAECHR benchmark, semantic similarity does not correlate with passage attribution. Within a retriever's candidate pool, similarity-based ranking performs worse than random selection at surfacing gold citation paragraphs. To address this limitation, a lightweight cross-encoder is trained on continuous perturbation-based attribution scores to re-rank passages prior to generation. This approach is evaluated on the AQuAECHR benchmark, using two language models and five-fold cross-validation. The re-ranker substantially improves citation faithfulness and alignment with gold expert answers. Notably, two re-rankers trained independently on different models converge beyond their raw attribution agreement. This finding indicates that the cross-encoder reduces model-specific noise and produces a shared relevance signal that partially transfers across models, although same-model re-ranking remains more effective. These results demonstrate that perturbation-based attribution provides a practical, model-agnostic training signal for citation-aware retrieval.

The FETCH classifier generates follow-up questions to help refine the best match for the applicant's legal problem, using a low-cost ensemble of LLMs. In this paper, we describe an expert attorney and LLM-assisted evaluation of the follow-up question approach in FETCH and show that while low-cost LLMs perform well at classification tasks, generating high-quality plain-language questions in this setting appears to require a more sophisticated and higher-cost model. Through discussion with legal intake workers, we propose a rubric for the evaluation of legal intake classification questions, and we find that prompt engineering alone is not enough to improve question quality for intake purposes. We also find that LLM-as-judge and human ratings diverge. We demonstrate that with the addition of a single high-cost model, GPT-5, the classifier can elicit relevant information from applicants for legal help, and that the questions lead to more accurate performance at classification tasks. We also find uneven fact elicitation across different categories, including domestic violence, at odds with family law screening protocols, suggesting the value of including dedicated screening panels for certain areas of law.

Visual evidence has long been treated as a reliable form of legal proof, but advances in artificial intelligence (AI) are undermining that assumption. This article asks how well humans and frontier multimodal large language models (MLLMs) can distinguish authentic evidentiary photographs from AI-generated counterparts in the object-centric scenarios typical of civil disputes. We built Synthetic Legal Evidence Detection (SLED-1400), a dataset of 200 authentic evidence images paired with 1,200 synthetic counterparts produced by six contemporary text-to-image generators across ten evidence categories. The same stimuli and response format were used in a controlled web experiment with 136 lay participants and in a standardized evaluation of four MLLMs (GPT-5.1, Gemini-3-Pro, Gemini-3-Flash, Qwen3-VL-235B). Human accuracy was 64.8% overall, and 48.5% and 51.0% on the two strongest generators (Gemini-3-Pro-Image and Flux-2-Max), indistinguishable from chance. MLLMs never misclassified an authentic image (100% specificity), but missed most synthetic outputs from the harder generators, with average MLLM detection at 5.9% on Gemini-3-Pro-Image outputs. Human and MLLM errors were largely uncorrelated, while the four MLLMs were strongly correlated with each other. Neither group is a reliable standalone authenticator. We argue that visual evidence in legal proceedings should be treated as inherently contestable, and that a workable procedural response must combine trained human review, MLLM screening, and provenance infrastructure such as C2PA Content Credentials.

Endowing large language models with compositional reasoning over specialized documents requires multi-hop training data at scale, where such data rarely exists outside of curated benchmarks built on structured sources. To construct it directly from plain, unannotated text, existing methods ask a single teacher model to jointly discover an evidence path through a document and verbalize it as a question-answer pair. However, these methods degrade sharply when documents are structured around repetitive templates and densely cross-referencing clauses, conditions that characterize most real-world specialized corpora. In this work, we decouple the two operations: reasoning paths are enumerated offline over a graph of contextual keyword centroids, and the teacher is invoked only to verbalize pre-validated paths. The graph enforces five geometric admissibility constraints, for which we provide Gram-matrix arguments establishing that local similarity bounds alone admit endpoint drift up to ${\sim}91^{\circ}$, and that an upper similarity bound is necessary to exit dense embedding cliques formed by boilerplate text. A matched-size ablation isolates the mechanism: at equal training scale, constrained and unconstrained chains yield indistinguishable downstream performance, and the gain at full scale comes from a 4.4$\times$ expansion of the usable corpus rather than from higher per-chain quality -- reframing the role of graph constraints, in this setting, as raising teacher synthesizability rather than improving chain content. Fine-tuning Qwen3-32B on 80K examples constructed from the CUAD legal contract corpus improves closed-book Token F1 from 21.66% to 38.58%. We have released our codes at https://github.com/hkgai-official/GCSCS.

U.S. immigration law spans thousands of pages of official policy, federal regulations, and procedural guidance that change frequently and carry high stakes for petitioners who lack legal representation. We describe the construction of ImmigrationQA, a source-grounded question-answering dataset of 17,058 pairs across 13 immigration subdomains, and the fine-tuning of a Llama 3.2 3B Instruct model on that dataset using parameter-efficient LoRA. The corpus was assembled from 11 primary and secondary sources -- including the USCIS Policy Manual, 8 CFR, BIA precedent decisions, and community Q&A -- yielding 10,056 validated canonical documents and 18,308 text chunks. Structured QA pairs were generated from these chunks using Claude Sonnet 4.6 via five mode-specific prompts, with 22 pairs rejected for insufficient source-span overlap. The fine-tuned model was evaluated against a held-out split of 993 pairs using LLM-as-judge scoring on a 101-example stratified sample. The fine-tuned model scored a mean of 1.08/3.0 (16.8% fully correct; 101-example stratified eval) versus the Llama 3 8B base model at 0.85/3.0 (4% fully correct), a relative improvement of 27% in mean score; a zero-shot Claude Sonnet baseline scored 1.52/3.0 (25% fully correct). The fine-tuned model shows concentrated improvement in procedural subdomains (travel documents, adjustment of status, nonimmigrant visas) while remaining weak on complex legal reasoning and time-sensitive statistics. The full pipeline ran for approximately $29 in cloud compute. All artifacts -- dataset, model, code, and prompt templates -- are publicly released. The system is not a substitute for legal counsel and does not reflect regulatory changes after the corpus crawl date.