arXiv:2606. 04602v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: 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.
By Hejia Geng, Leo Liu
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:2606. 18021v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: 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.
By Lalit Yadav, Akshaj Gurugubelli
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.
LexAgentHallu is a new benchmark that profiles hallucinations in legal agents across multi-step interactions. It contains 3,414 instances spanning 17 legal categories and 6 task types, each annotated with a dual-layer taxonomy of 7 high-level and 27 fine-grained hallucination categories. The benchmark introduces fine-grained metrics to quantify and localize failures along an agent’s execution path, revealing patterns such as the Right-Answer-Wrong-Reason effect and clustered hallucination subclasses.
By Yujin Zhou, Mingxuan Zheng, Chuxue Cao, Huang Yidan, Jiale Chen, Yike Guo, Sirui Han
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
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 misci...
arXiv:2609.05677v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Lifelong LLM agents increasingly rely on external skill artifacts as one element for preserving and reusing capabilities over time. These skills (usu...
By Chen Shen, Estevam Hruschka
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.
By Yiqian Huang, Shuyuan Zheng, Qianying Liu, Shaowen Peng, Yuntao Kong, Kotaro Funakoshi, Chuan Xiao, Manabu Okumura, Yang Cao
arXiv:2608. 20220v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Legal AI systems are increasingly used to answer legal questions, yet existing benchmarks assume queries arrive fully specified.
By Samuel J. Vincent, Daniel Calloway, Fangyi Yu, Andrew M. Bean, Nabeel Seedat
arXiv:2605.25920v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: While large language models (LLMs) augmented with agentic search capabilities show promise for legal reasoning, they overlook a fundamental constra...
By Wei Fan, Yining Zhou, Mufan Zhang, Yanbing Weng, Yiran HU, Tianshi Zheng, Baixuan Xu, Chunyang Li, Jianhui Yang, Haoran Li, Yangqiu Song
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.
By Andrew Lou, David Shin