The paper introduces PARCEL, a benchmark designed to evaluate whether legal claims are supported by cited authorities. Using 3,396 claims from New York State Court of Appeals decisions, the authors label each claim as Supported, Refuted, or Not Found and cast the task as a three‑way natural language inference problem. State‑of‑the‑art LLMs achieve up to 0.97 accuracy in zero‑shot settings, yet they still frequently misclassify unsupported claims as supported, especially when fabricated but plausible citations are present.
By M. Mikail Demir, M. Abdullah Canbaz
arXiv:2505. 02763v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: One of the central promises of legal AI is to automate drudgery -- the formal, repetitive tasks of lawyers' work that consume time without calling for much discretion.
By Matthew Dahl, Eric Mart\'inez
arXiv:2605. 21071v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The rapid progress of large language models (LLMs) is shifting semantic search toward a question-answering paradigm, where users ask questions and LLMs generate responses.
By Souvick Das, Sallam Abualhaija, Domenico Bianculli
arXiv:2607. 03325v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: 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.
By Giovanni Piccioli, Alessia Fidelangeli, Piera Santin, Pierpaolo Vivo
CanLegalRAGBench is a Canadian legal QA benchmark that uses realistic queries and expert‑annotated answers grounded in case law to evaluate retrieval‑augmented generation (RAG) systems. The study finds that retrieval performance varies with design choices and that open‑source embedding models can compete with closed‑source ones. It also highlights limitations of automatic evaluations, noting that RAG systems often produce hallucinations or overly detailed responses, with 8‑29% of claims unsupported by retrieved documents.
By Ethan Zhao, Maksym Taranukhin, Wei Cui, Moira Aikenhead, Vered Shwartz
Legal Research Bench (LRB) is a new benchmark comprising 413 open-ended U.S. legal research questions, each paired with a gold answer, supporting authorities, and a binary grading rubric. The study evaluates thirteen advanced language‑model agents using web search, case‑law search, page parsing, and retrieval tools, scoring responses only when all required criteria are met and cited authorities verify. Results show that even the best model, Claude Opus 4.8, achieves full correctness on only 42.9% of questions, with performance varying by legal area and task complexity, and no clear link between more tool calls or inference cost and higher accuracy.
By Katrina Drozdov, Oliver Chen, Langston Nashold, Rayan Krishnan
arXiv:2509.00141v2 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Statutory corpora and judicial decisions are growing faster than legal professionals can read them, while individual judgments often exceed t...
By Anuraj Maurya
The paper surveys how large language models (LLMs) are being applied in legal tasks such as judgement prediction, document analysis, and drafting. It reviews the benefits of automation while highlighting legal challenges like privacy, bias, and explainability. The authors also discuss data resources for legal domain specialization and outline future research directions.
By Zhongxiang Sun
arXiv:2509. 00761v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models are increasingly deployed for legal question answering, where evaluations typically focus on multiple-choice accuracy.
By Boqin Yuan, Ziqi Wang
arXiv:2608.29884v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: We show that sequence-level distillation from a capable long-context teacher model is a simple, annotation-free, and data-efficient strategy for improv...
By Mohamed Elaraby, Ahmed Elhady, Diane Litman
The paper introduces an automated pipeline that converts court decisions into legal commentaries for specific German Civil Code sections, using paragraph extraction, summarization, keyword clustering, and large language models to generate headings and citation-rich sections. The system processes 4,555 decisions from the German Federal Court of Justice, evaluates the output on relevance, heading match, citation faithfulness, cluster distinction, and logical ordering, and demonstrates that rapid, low-cost commentary generation is feasible while noting limitations due to source restrictions and legal reasoning norms.
By Max Prior, Niklas Wais, Matthias Grabmair
OARelatedWork is a large‑scale dataset for generating entire related‑work sections from open‑access papers, comprising 94,450 papers across multiple domains. It includes full texts of cited works and is designed so every source paper is available in full, enabling controlled evaluation of full‑text related‑work generation. The paper benchmarks various models, shows that large language models struggle with massive full‑text contexts, and introduces a statement‑level evaluation framework to better assess long‑form structured outputs.
By Martin Docekal, Martin Fajcik, Pavel Smrz