Legal NLP

We investigate whether continued pretraining on Russian legislative documents improves a Russian ModernBERT encoder on legal text. The adapted model, RuModernBERT-ruLaw, was trained on a corpus reported to contain 304,382 legislative documents and 194,425,905 corpus tokens. Corpus token counts are distinguished from positions produced by the model tokenizer. We compare the original and adapted encoders on a fixed external collection of 1,031 court-decision segments. Both models receive the same hidden positions in each of five masking realizations. At maximum input lengths of 512, 2,048, and 8,192 tokens, mean masked-token cross-entropy decreases by 0.10942, 0.07052, and 0.06604 natural-log units, respectively. The reported 95% intervals summarize sensitivity to masking on this fixed collection; they do not quantify uncertainty across document collections. A second evaluation addresses legal-entity extraction. The original and adapted models achieve entity-level F1 scores of 0.99852 and 0.99820. However, 99.95% of test spans have the same normalized surface form and class in the training split. This evaluation therefore provides limited evidence about transfer to previously unseen forms. The paper explains the masking objective, overlapping windows, averaging rules, and exact entity-boundary scoring using editable diagrams and clearly marked illustrative examples. The comparison supports lower masked-token prediction loss for the studied pair of models and collection. It does not isolate the contribution of distant context or establish practical legal utility.

In this paper, we evaluate open-source generative LLMs on legal Natural Language Inference (NLI). Legal inspectorial processes take place in specific domains and often deal with confidential data. This creates a need for working with local models that do not require labeled training data. We evaluate our models on the ContractNLI benchmark and two NLI4Wills datasets. We successfully reproduce the baseline for the task (Span NLI BERT) and we evaluate multiple open-source LLMs on the same task. We analyze the invalid rate of the models, and their stability across temperature settings and domains. Among the generative models, Gemma-4 26B performs the best, reaching an accuracy of 81.2%, even outperforming the supervised model on one metric. On accuracy, it is not possible to beat the supervised model with zero-shot approaches. Qwen-3.6 35B performs well on both ContractNLI and additional datasets in the legal wills domain. Our findings indicate that zero-shot, open-source, generative LLMs are a viable alternative for real-world legal NLI when no supervised data is available. Our code is available at https://github.com/fbaratov/contractnli-llms.

Regulatory compliance checking - deciding whether a target document satisfies the obligations of a regulation - requires interpreting dense legal text, identifying which provisions apply, and grounding each decision in explicit evidence. We present ARCCS, an end-to-end, automated, agentic, and regulation-agnostic Legal NLP system for compliance checking. ARCCS decomposes raw regulatory text into atomic, traceable requirements and evaluates a target document against them using retrieved evidence, confidence scores, and human-interpretable justifications. This design decouples compliance assessment from any fixed regulatory template or predefined rule set, enabling the pipeline to operate over regulations of varying size and structure. We evaluate ARCCS in two complementary settings. First, in a GDPR policy-document evaluation, LLM-based judges find its decisions and justifications legally and evidentially consistent in up to 96.67% of the assessed cases. Second, on an EU public-procurement benchmark comprising more than 1,200 individual rule checks, the system attains 98.8% accuracy in violation detection. ARCCS is, to our knowledge, the first fully open-source system for end-to-end regulatory compliance checking and auditable report generation.

Vietnam's Personal Data Protection Law (Law No. 91/2025/QH15) and Decree No. 356/2025/ND-CP, effective January 1, 2026, require organizations to establish and maintain Records of Processing Activities (RoPA). Manual RoPA preparation is labor-intensive, while cloud-hosted large language models (LLMs) may conflict with data-sovereignty requirements. We propose RoPA Manager, a system for automated RoPA information extraction using hybrid retrieval that combines lexical ranking over tsvector, dense-vector search, Reciprocal Rank Fusion (RRF), and locally deployed LLMs. We introduce a Vietnamese RoPA benchmark with 32 organizations, 77 processing activities, 12 field groups, and 4,338 reference values. Evaluation is reported at three distinct levels. The automated scorer, tested on perturbed data without invoking an LLM, achieved F1 = 0.9493 [0.9436, 0.9548]; this measures scorer robustness rather than end-to-end extraction accuracy. End-to-end extraction achieved token coverage of 50.04-55.25% against the reference labels. Two independent experts reviewed 1,558 reference values (35.9% of the benchmark), found no incorrect values, and achieved 99.68% agreement with PABAK = 0.9936. Value-level precision was not measured. Across 32 paired scenarios on a 24 GB GPU, locally deployed Qwen3.5-27B-GPTQ-Int4 showed no statistically significant difference from cloud-based DeepSeek-V4-Flash (difference 0.20 percentage points in favor of DeepSeek, 95% CI [-0.93, 1.32], p = 0.72), while Gemma-4-31B performed significantly worse (p < 0.01).

Faithfulness is a central concern in legal text summarization, which motivates extractive approaches that select verbatim content traceable to its source. Such methods typically rank paragraphs or other structural units in isolation, yet give little attention to consolidating evidence that is distributed across, and shares salience between, distant parts of a document. We introduce LexLattice, an extractive summarizer that reifies a legal act's hierarchy as a two-dimensional semantic lattice and consolidates over it with a masked 2D neural cellular automata before selection. LexLattice attains state-of-the-art ROUGE across all 24 languages of EUR-Lex-Sum in both multilingual and cross-lingual settings, surpassing instruction-tuned baselines with billions of parameters, despite concentrating all trainable capacity in a 1.8M parameter consolidator over a frozen multilingual encoder. A consolidator trained only on high-resource languages further transfers to unseen languages with near-lossless retention (0.99), indicating that the model operates on language-agnostic semantic geometry rather than surface form. Our results position explicit consolidation over document structure as a compact and traceable alternative to scale for multilingual legal summarization.

Judicial reasoning remains challenging for large language models (LLMs) to analyze. This paper contributes a sentence-level benchmark for evaluating the ability of LLMs to classify interpretive canons as articulated by Larenz in the tradition of Savigny. Our contributions are threefold. First, we operationalize this conception of interpretation as classification criteria. Second, we provide a dataset of decisions of the German Federal Constitutional Court annotated at the sentence level. Third, we report baseline evaluations of four LLMs from three model families under expert hand-written prompts, compared against prompts optimized with Genetic-Pareto (GEPA). Mean F1 over the seven binary subtasks clusters between 70.4 and 79.2 across models, with grammatical interpretation usually the easiest canon to identify and systematic interpretation usually the hardest; under the tested configuration, GEPA-optimized prompts do not systematically outperform the hand-written ones, suggesting that the expert prompts provide a meaningful baseline.

Legal information in Bangladesh is inaccessible to most citizens. Statutory text is English-only, trained lawyers are concentrated in urban centres, and cloud-dependent AI fails where mobile connectivity is unreliable, a setting in which hallucinated legal text causes direct harm. The system addresses statutory interpretation only; queries that require judicial precedent or case-law reasoning fall outside its scope. We target the statutory access gap by compressing a 9-billion-parameter Gemma-2 teacher into a 2-billion-parameter student through two-phase progressive knowledge distillation. Phase 1 performs supervised fine-tuning on 9,429 quality-gated legal question-answer pairs (65% acceptance from 14,514 generated queries); Phase 2 minimises sparse Kullback-Leibler divergence against the teacher's top-50 per-token logits at temperature tau = 4.0, implemented via QLoRA (4-bit NF4, rank-32 LoRA adapters). Prior legal language models target general legal English; this system specialises in Bangladeshi statutory law. Every response is grounded through hybrid retrieval combining dense semantic search (60%) and BM25 (40%) across 36,029 statutory passages from the Bangladesh Constitution and national legislation. On a 50-query English benchmark, the distilled model reaches ROUGE-L 0.4715 and BERTScore F1 0.5679, a 103% ROUGE-L and 143% BERTScore gain over the retrieval-augmented undistilled baseline (ROUGE-L 0.2323, BERTScore 0.2340). The adapter quantises to 1.6 GB (GGUF Q4_K_M) and runs at 4-8 tokens per second on a Pixel 6 with no network access. Cross-lingual evaluation on 50 Bangla queries yields ROUGE-L 0.4083 and BERTScore 0.8133, showing effective retrieval from Bangla input against an English-only corpus. In a single-evaluator pilot, a practising lawyer rated 50 responses at a weighted mean of 4.16/5 (90% rated 4 or 5), supporting utility beyond text-overlap metrics.

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

Traffic regulations are written for human interpretation and therefore rely on shared background knowledge and flexible phrasing, which inherently introduce ambiguity, context dependence, and semantic underspecification. These linguistic characteristics conflict with the precision required by computational reasoning engines such as Prolog, which demand explicit logical structure. This study evaluates two baseline translation approaches, Natural Language to Prolog ($NL\rightarrow Prolog$) and Logical English to Prolog ($LE\rightarrow Prolog$), and introduces a new reasoning-guided translation framework called Structured Four-Stage Legal Translation ($S4L\rightarrow Prolog$). The proposed S4L framework performs semantic role extraction, scene completion, logical mapping, and Prolog rule generation within a single guided prompt, enabling direct translation of raw traffic rules into executable logic without human intervention. A benchmark consisting of twenty real-world traffic rules was used to evaluate each approach in terms of syntactic validity, semantic correctness, and logical completeness. $S4L\rightarrow Prolog$ achieves the highest accuracy, correctly formalizing 75 percent of the rules, while $NL\rightarrow Prolog$ reaches 60 percent and $LE\rightarrow Prolog$ reaches 55 percent. Qualitative analysis further shows that S4L captures implicit causal relations, deontic modality, and exception structure more reliably than the baselines. These results demonstrate that structured reasoning prompts can substantially improve the reliability of natural-language-to-logic translation for legal and safety-critical applications.

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.

With hate speech being ubiquitous online, automatic detection is crucial, in particular when it comes to criminally relevant social media posts. We study a variety of retrieval-based in-context learning (RetICL) strategies for detecting defamatory offences under §§ 185-187 StGB (the subject of GermEval 2026 Subtask 4). Few-shot prompting beats zero-shot, but retrieval-based approaches offer only marginal gains over random demonstrations, and even fall behind an optimised static set of demonstrations. Providing concrete legal knowledge helps, yet model choice outweighs every other system choice. Models over-predict criminal relevance while still missing 26-57% of criminally relevant posts, suiting them for triage rather than autonomous moderation.

Criminal judgment prediction requires models to infer statutory articles, charges, and sentencing outcomes from case facts. Unlike standard classification tasks, it involves a structured reasoning process in which statutes should be matched with facts, charges should be justified by statutes, and sentencing outcomes should remain consistent with charges. Existing approaches optimize final labels, and while some have attempted to evaluate reasoning quality, their evaluations are indirect, often relying on LLM-generated rubrics that reflect model-internal preferences rather than the inherent logical structure of legal adjudication. We propose Juris Policy Optimization (JPO), a post-training framework for structured legal reasoning in Chinese criminal judgment prediction. JPO first uses teacher-generated rationales to supervise a standardized four-step reasoning process, and then applies reinforcement learning with a composite reward over legal prediction quality, reasoning structure completeness, and cross-step consistency. JPO further introduces token-level advantage reweighting and adaptive clipping for legally salient reasoning segments. Experiments on multiple open-source language models and three Chinese legal benchmarks show that JPO consistently improves both judgment prediction and reasoning quality over supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning baselines.

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.

The automatic structural analysis of legal texts is a cornerstone of legal technology, yet the extraction of their logical components remains a significant challenge. In this paper, we introduce the task of identifying and segmenting legal conditions (Tatbestand) and legal consequences (Rechtsfolge) within German statutory texts. To support this task, we present ANNOTARES (Annotations of Tatbestand-Rechtsfolge Sequences), a novel dataset comprising German law texts with span-level annotations. Spanning three distinct legal codes, the dataset is designed to evaluate both domain-specific performance and cross-statute generalizability. We benchmark diverse architectural approaches: a rule-based baseline, CRFs, BiLSTMs, BiLSTM-CRF, and modern Transformer-based models, including BERT variants and LLM-based methods. Our results demonstrate that BERT and LLM-based models achieve superior performance in capturing the complex syntactic structures of legal language. We release our dataset to facilitate further research in automated legal reasoning.

Deception detection has critical implications for legal proceedings, law enforcement, and online security. Although human judgment is limited in accuracy and scalability, Natural Language Processing (NLP) offers a data-driven alternative. We present a survey and comparative analysis of NLP-based Automatic Deception Detection (ADD) focusing on the legal domain, reviewing the evolution from feature-based machine learning to Large Language Model (LLM) approaches. We conduct a unified empirical evaluation across seven datasets (two legal, five general-domain), comparing six fine-tuned transformer models and seven LLMs under four prompting strategies. The results show strong domain sensitivity, with fine-tuned models excelling in data-rich general domains and few-shot LLMs remaining competitive in low-resource legal settings. Chain-of-Thought prompting often underperforms direct classification. These findings highlight the need for domain adaptation and interpretable systems in high-stakes legal contexts.

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.

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.

Neural machine translation (NMT) in the legal domain is a linguistically and conceptually demanding task, primarily due to the complexity of legal language and the high level of precision it requires. The recent emergence of reasoning-capable language models opens new possibilities for tackling such challenges. They add to a set of other previously proposed techniques to enhance the translation quality, which includes supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning. In this work, we perform a comparison between these various approaches. More particularly, we evaluate small language models such as Qwen3.5 4B, Qwen3.5 9B, and Gemma 3 12B enhanced with various re-training paradigms and compare their performances against frontier reasoning models. We focus on the Swiss legal system, which -- with its unique multilingual statutes -- offers a particularly challenging testbed for reasoning-augmented models. Our results show that the quality of small ``base'' models can be greatly enhanced, and that reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards can be applied to NMT in the legal domain and surpasses the translation quality of supervised fine-tuning. The performance of enhanced small models is close to the one of state-of-the-art reasoning models yet remains inferior. We also note that re-training paradigms yield diminishing returns as model size increase. The code and models are publicly available at https://github.com/aixiuxiuxiu/Legal-MT-SFT-RL.

Empirical legal scholarship increasingly treats judicial text as data, and much of it still runs on sparse, interpretable pipelines (TF-IDF features and linear classifiers) because the textual feature is often the object of study rather than a means to a prediction. Yet these pipelines inherit preprocessing defaults from mid-century information retrieval that were never validated against classification accuracy. The most entrenched of these is stopword removal. This study introduces an exhaustive single-word ablation that measures a preprocessing step's effect directly against the downstream objective, and applies it to stopword removal. Matching Supreme Court Database labels to Caselaw Access Project opinion texts, the study examines two binary tasks, ideological direction (no-removal baseline F1 about 0.68) and constitutional versus non-constitutional law type (about 0.92), across 7,668 and 7,001 opinions. For each task, the ablation removes each of roughly 18,500 candidate words in turn, and a task-specific stoplist is built from the resulting measurements. Generic stoplists in common use fall below the no-removal baseline on held-out opinions in all twelve tests. The task-specific stoplists move held-out F1 by +0.0023 (95% CI [-0.0124, +0.0170]) on ideology and by +0.0001 ([-0.0082, +0.0085]) on law type. Neither task shows a detectable benefit from removal, and a supplemental analysis finds that word-level statistics predict a word's removal effect poorly, because the words' true removal effects differ by less than the measurement can register. The method generalizes to any inherited preprocessing default, and the result is a caution specific to interpretable legal text-as-data, where a step that reshapes which features a model sees can distort the doctrinal and ideological signal the research is meant to recover. The burden of proof sits with removal.

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.

We present the Bangladesh Legal Acts Dataset (BLAD), a curated collection of 1{,}484 legislative acts enacted between 1799 and 2025. Each act is represented with its full text, structured sections and footnotes, repeal status, and metadata linking it to the governing regime, head of state, and prevailing legal framework at the time of enactment. The corpus spans English, Bengali, and mixed-language documents, supporting temporal and multilingual analysis of statutory law. BLAD addresses a persistent gap in legal natural language processing (NLP) resources for low-resource, civil-law jurisdictions in South Asia. We describe the acquisition and enrichment pipeline, report descriptive statistics over more than two centuries of legislation, and outline the research directions the corpus enables. The dataset is publicly available under the CCBY-SA4.0 license at https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/sakhadib/bangladesh-legal-acts-dataset.

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.

While multi-agent debate (MAD) frameworks have shown significant potential in general reasoning, their effectiveness in highly structured, knowledge-heavy legal domains remains under-explored. In this work, we introduce the Legal Multi-Agent Debate (L-MAD) framework to systematically evaluate different debate structures and aggregation methods within Legal Textual Entailment. By assigning distinct expert personas to multiple agents, L-MAD improves upon strong single-agent baselines by up to 8%. Furthermore, analyzing how debate scales reveals a clear trade-off: increasing the agent population reduces inconsistency and improves accuracy, whereas extending discussion rounds induces a detrimental \textit{over-deliberation drift} where agents reinforce each other's mistakes. Ultimately, our findings outline the practical boundaries and safety margins of deploying collaborative multi-agent systems in high-stakes legal reasoning environments.

Current Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) is constrained by its reliance on post-hoc judicial materials, increasing the likelihood that models perform retrospective classification rather than true forecasting. This paper empirically investigates shortcut learning in this context by studying claim-level outcome prediction in UK Employment Tribunal (UKET) decisions. Using a corpus of 33,158 individual claims, we predict outcomes from claim texts and LLM-extracted case summaries, evaluating models ranging from interpretable TF-IDF-based classifiers to black-box LLMs. While headline predictive performance figures appear strong, we demonstrate that such performance in LJP systems trained on post-hoc judicial text can be driven by the retrospective nature of the source material. Stratifying the test data by human judgments of leakage reveals that performance increases where outcome-revealing cues are embedded in the narrative. Moreover, a model trained on just the 4% of features identified as leakage achieves high performance, outperforming human experts. These findings substantiate concerns that LJP performance may be exaggerated by linguistic artefacts. Yet this vulnerability is not fatal to the research agenda. Instead, post-hoc judgments might be treated as potentially contaminated texts, requiring active auditing. Retraining models after masking leakage features results in only a negligible reduction in Macro-F1. Hence, while models will opportunistically exploit shortcuts when available, they remain capable of extracting useful predictive signals when these artefacts are removed.

Creative Commons licenses dominate African NLP corpus releases, but their compatibility rules are rarely applied. CC-BY-SA and CC-BY-NC cannot be combined in a single published dataset; a NoDerivs clause silently prohibits tokenisation and annotation. This paper audits the license provenance of over twenty corpus families used in African NLP, constructs a six-tier compatibility matrix, and applies it to three case-study languages: Kituba/Munukutuba, Zarma, and Moore. Four failure modes are documented with primary-source evidence: outright prohibition (JW300, removed from OPUS after a legal audit confirmed Terms of Service violation); composite license misrepresentation (WAXAL, whose CC-BY 4.0 claim is contradicted by its own HuggingFace dataset card); a NoDerivs clause hidden behind a CC-BY label (Tanzil); and data persistence failure (the Congolese Radio Corpus, where 402 of 405 source URLs are now dead). A pre-annotation due diligence checklist and a survey of legally clean enrichment opportunities close the paper.

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.

In recent times, Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being used for legal case judgement summarization. Most prior works have tried traditional extractive and abstractive summarization of case judgements. However, hybrid or extractive-abstractive techniques have not been explored much. In this work, we propose a novel tree-of-thoughts inspired extractive-abstractive summarization approach for legal judgement summarization. We conduct experiments using two popular LLMs, DeepSeek and LLama, and compare among extractive, abstractive and extractive-abstractive summarization. Our experiments show that the proposed extractive-abstractive prompt provides better summaries compared to other types of LLM prompts.

Verifying the eligibility of securities as collateral is a key responsibility of the German Central Bank. However, manually verifying these assets against legal and financial criteria within lengthy, semi-structured, and often bilingual prospectuses is a resource-intensive task. While previous efforts utilized traditional Named Entity Recognition (NER) for information extraction, these methods can struggle with OCR noise, linguistic variance, and rigid span-based constraints, and the need for manually annotated training data for each relevant annotation type. In this paper, we present the first case study applying Large Language Models (LLMs) to the eligibility examination process, shifting the paradigm toward a generative Information Extraction pipeline. Our approach decomposes the task into extraction, normalization, and interpretation, allowing for greater flexibility in handling noisy text and interleaved German-English content. We further introduce a value-based evaluation methodology using LLM-as-a-judge, which offers a more semantic assessment than location-based metrics. Our results demonstrate that LLM-based systems achieve high precision (up to 91%) in document-level eligibility, exhibiting a conservative operating profile that minimizes false acceptance.