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.
arXiv:2606. 23716v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: 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.
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.
arXiv:2608. 14610v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Legal reasoning tasks such as legal judgment prediction (LJP) require identifying the temporally correct version of the law governing a case -- a capability we term temporal applicable-law determination.
arXiv:2606. 23913v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: This article develops an architecture that creates a formally verifiable reward signal to train legal AI, adapting the LLM proposes, verifier disposes paradigm from mathematical AI to the distinctive demands of law.
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.
arXiv:2608. 08830v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: 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.
The paper introduces Gavel, a framework for evaluating large language models (LLMs) on long-context legal summarization tasks. Gavel includes a reference-based component (Gavel-Ref) with checklist, residual-fact, and writing-style checks, and a reference-free component (Gavel-Agent) that assesses factual coverage directly from source documents. Experiments on 12 frontier LLMs reveal that models tend to omit key information more than hallucinate, perform well on simple checklist items but struggle with rare, complex items, and their performance degrades with longer cases. Gavel-Agent cuts token usage by at least 36% compared to traditional methods while maintaining competitive accuracy, and it also generalizes effectively to the medical domain.
The paper introduces Legal Rule Induction (LRI), a task that seeks to extract concise, generalizable doctrinal rules from analogous judicial precedents. It presents a reproducible pipeline for constructing LRI datasets and, using Chinese law, releases the first benchmark comprising 5,121 case sets (38,088 court cases) for training and 216 expert‑annotated gold test sets. Experiments show that state‑of‑the‑art large language models struggle with over‑generalization and hallucination, but training on the new dataset significantly improves their ability to capture nuanced rule patterns across similar cases.
arXiv:2606. 15646v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have transformed natural language processing, but their lack of interpretable reasoning and tendency to hallucinate pose significant challenges for legal applications.
arXiv:2609.17546v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In this position paper, we argue that legal LLMs' hallucinations should be evaluated as a failure of legal warrant rather than as factual inaccuracy or...
arXiv:2607. 18825v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: This comprehensive study introduces an advanced Artificial Intelligence for Indian Legal Question Answering (AILQA) system tailored to the Indian legal context.
This study experimentally evaluates large language models (LLMs) for legal decision-making in Austrian and EU value‑added tax (VAT) law. It compares fine‑tuning and retrieval‑augmented generation (RAG) on textbook and real‑world tax consulting cases to identify optimal LLM configurations and assess legal‑reasoning abilities. Results show that properly configured LLMs can aid tax professionals with routine tasks and provide legally grounded justifications, though they are not yet ready for full automation due to challenges like hallucination and handling implicit client knowledge.