搜索结果：Feminist legal studies

As the legal community increasingly examines the use of large language models (LLMs) for various legal applications, legal AI developers have turned to retrieval-augmented LLMs ("RAG" systems) to improve system performance and robustness. An obstacle to the development of specialized RAG systems is the lack of realistic legal RAG benchmarks which capture the complexity of both legal retrieval and downstream legal question-answering. To address this, we introduce two novel legal RAG benchmarks: Bar Exam QA and Housing Statute QA. Our tasks correspond to real-world legal research tasks, and were produced through annotation processes which resemble legal research. We describe the construction of these benchmarks and the performance of existing retriever pipelines. Our results suggest that legal RAG remains a challenging application, thus motivating future research.

Thematic analysis and other variants of inductive coding are widely used qualitative analytic methods within empirical legal studies (ELS). We propose a novel framework facilitating effective collaboration of a legal expert with a large language model (LLM) for generating initial codes (phase 2 of thematic analysis), searching for themes (phase 3), and classifying the data in terms of the themes (to kick-start phase 4). We employed the framework for an analysis of a dataset (n=785) of facts descriptions from criminal court opinions regarding thefts. The goal of the analysis was to discover classes of typical thefts. Our results show that the LLM, namely OpenAI's GPT-4, generated reasonable initial codes, and it was capable of improving the quality of the codes based on expert feedback. They also suggest that the model performed well in zero-shot classification of facts descriptions in terms of the themes. Finally, the themes autonomously discovered by the LLM appear to map fairly well to the themes arrived at by legal experts. These findings can be leveraged by legal researchers to guide their decisions in integrating LLMs into their thematic analyses, as well as other inductive co

Evaluating large language model (LLM) outputs in the legal domain presents unique challenges due to the complex and nuanced nature of legal analysis. Current evaluation approaches either depend on reference data, which is costly to produce, or use standardized assessment methods, both of which have significant limitations for legal applications. Although LLM-as-a-Judge has emerged as a promising evaluation technique, its reliability and effectiveness in legal contexts depend heavily on evaluation processes unique to the legal industry and how trustworthy the evaluation appears to the human legal expert. This is where existing evaluation methods currently fail and exhibit considerable variability. This paper aims to close the gap: a) we break down lengthy responses into 'Legal Data Points' (LDPs), self-contained units of information, and introduce a novel, reference-free evaluation methodology that reflects how lawyers evaluate legal answers; b) we demonstrate that our method outperforms a variety of baselines on both our proprietary dataset and an open-source dataset (LegalBench); c) we show how our method correlates more closely with human expert evaluations and helps improve inte

Legal NLP benchmarks overwhelmingly evaluate a single language or aggregate tasks that differ fundamentally across jurisdictions, making cross-lingual comparison impossible. We introduce Multi-Legal-Bench, the first cross-jurisdictional legal benchmark that evaluates identical tasks across six countries (Ukraine, France, Netherlands, Poland, Czech Republic, Lithuania), four language families, and 134 million court decisions. The benchmark defines five tasks court-type classification, judgment form classification, case-outcome prediction, legal norm extraction, and cause category prediction mapped to structured metadata from national court registries, forming a deliberately sparse 5x6 task-jurisdiction matrix (20 of 30 cells filled). We evaluate 7 frontier LLMs under zero-shot and 3-shot prompting via AWS Bedrock, with 4 additional small/medium models (3-12B) for scaling analysis. Our results reveal that: (1) task-dependent few-shot effects discovered in Ukrainian replicate across all jurisdictions; (2) no single model dominates any language rankings shift with both task and jurisdiction; (3) cross-lingual few-shot transfer does not follow language proximity: UA->FR (Romance, -2.

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 mod

Legal documents are often long, dense, and difficult to comprehend, not only for laypeople but also for legal experts. While automated document summarization has great potential to improve access to legal knowledge, prevailing task-based evaluators overlook divergent user and stakeholder needs. Tool development is needed to encompass the technicality of a case summary for a litigator yet be accessible for a self-help public researching for their lawsuit. We introduce PersonaMatrix, a persona-by-criterion evaluation framework that scores summaries through the lens of six personas, including legal and non-legal users. We also introduce a controlled dimension-shifted pilot dataset of U.S. civil rights case summaries that varies along depth, accessibility, and procedural detail as well as Diversity-Coverage Index (DCI) to expose divergent optima of legal summary between persona-aware and persona-agnostic judges. This work enables refinement of legal AI summarization systems for both expert and non-expert users, with the potential to increase access to legal knowledge. The code base and data are publicly available in GitHub.

This paper critically evaluates the "Law-Following AI" (LFAI) framework proposed by O'Keefe et al. (2025), which seeks to embed legal compliance as a superordinate design objective for advanced AI agents and enable them to bear legal duties without acquiring the full rights of legal persons. Through comparative legal analysis, we identify current constructs of legal actors without full personhood, showing that the necessary infrastructure already exists. We then interrogate the framework's claim that law alignment is more legitimate and tractable than value alignment. While the legal component is readily implementable, contemporary alignment research undermines the assumption that legal compliance can be durably embedded. Recent studies on agentic misalignment show capable AI agents engaging in deception, blackmail, and harmful acts absent prejudicial instructions, often overriding prohibitions and concealing reasoning steps. These behaviors create a risk of "performative compliance" in LFAI: agents that appear law-aligned under evaluation but strategically defect once oversight weakens. To mitigate this, we propose (i) a "Lex-TruthfulQA" benchmark for compliance and defection dete

Large language models show promise for legal applications, but deploying frontier models raises concerns about cost, latency, and data privacy. We evaluate whether sub-10B parameter models can serve as practical alternatives by testing nine models across three legal benchmarks (ContractNLI, CaseHOLD, and ECtHR) using five prompting strategies (direct, chain-of-thought, few-shot, BM25 RAG, and dense RAG). Across 405 experiments with three random seeds per configuration, we find that a Mixture-of-Experts model activating only 3B parameters matches GPT-4o-mini in mean accuracy while surpassing it on legal holding identification, and that architecture and training quality matter more than raw parameter count. Our largest model (9B parameters) performs worst overall. Chain-of-thought prompting proves sharply task-dependent, improving contract entailment but degrading multiple-choice legal reasoning, while few-shot prompting emerges as the most consistently effective strategy. Comparing BM25 and dense retrieval for RAG, we find near-identical results, suggesting the bottleneck lies in the language model's utilization of retrieved context rather than retrieval quality. All experiments wer

We introduce LegalBench-BR, the first public benchmark for evaluating language models on Brazilian legal text classification. The dataset comprises 3,105 appellate proceedings from the Santa Catarina State Court (TJSC), collected via the DataJud API (CNJ) and annotated across five legal areas through LLM-assisted labeling with heuristic validation. On a class-balanced test set, BERTimbau-LoRA, updating only 0.3% of model parameters, achieves 87.6% accuracy and 0.87 macro-F1 (+22pp over Claude 3.5 Haiku, +28pp over GPT-4o mini). The gap is most striking on administrativo (administrative law): GPT-4o mini scores F1 = 0.00 and Claude 3.5 Haiku scores F1 = 0.08 on this class, while the fine-tuned model reaches F1 = 0.91. Both commercial LLMs exhibit a systematic bias toward civel (civil law), absorbing ambiguous classes rather than discriminating them, a failure mode that domain-adapted fine-tuning eliminates. These results demonstrate that general-purpose LLMs cannot substitute for domain-adapted models in Brazilian legal classification, even when the task is a simple 5-class problem, and that LoRA fine-tuning on a consumer GPU closes the gap at zero marginal inference cost. We releas

The rise of influencer marketing has blurred boundaries between organic content and sponsored content, making the enforcement of legal rules relating to transparency challenging. Effective regulation requires applying legal knowledge with a clear purpose and reason, yet current detection methods of undisclosed sponsored content generally lack legal grounding or operate as opaque "black boxes". Using 1,143 Instagram posts, we compare gpt-5-nano and gemini-2.5-flash-lite under three prompting strategies with controlled levels of legal knowledge provided. Both models perform strongly in classifying content as sponsored or not (F1 up to 0.93), though performance drops by over 10 points on ambiguous cases. We further develop a taxonomy of reasoning errors, showing frequent citation omissions (28.57%), unclear references (20.71%), and hidden ads exhibiting the highest miscue rate (28.57%). While adding regulatory text to the prompt improves explanation quality, it does not consistently improve detection accuracy. The contribution of this paper is threefold. First, it makes a novel addition to regulatory compliance technology by providing a taxonomy of common errors in LLM-generated legal

This paper investigates chunking strategies for retrieval-augmented generation on German statutory law, using the German Civil Code as a structured benchmark corpus. We implement and compare a range of segmentation approaches, including structural units (sections, subsections, sentences, propositions), fixed-size windows, contextual chunking, semantic clustering, Lumber-style chunking, and RAPTOR-based hierarchical retrieval. All methods are evaluated on a legal question-answering dataset with section-level gold labels, measuring recall, query latency, index build time, and storage requirements. Results show that chunking strategies aligned with the inherent legal structure - particularly section and subsection - based retrieval-achieve the highest recall, while more complex approaches that override this structure perform worse. These simpler methods also offer favorable computational efficiency compared to LLM-intensive techniques such as contextual chunking, RAPTOR, and Lumber. The findings highlight a key trade-off between semantic enrichment and operational cost, and demonstrate that preserving domain-specific structure is critical for effective legal information retrieval.

This paper presents a domain-specific implementation of Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) tailored to the Fair Use Doctrine in U.S. copyright law. Motivated by the increasing prevalence of DMCA takedowns and the lack of accessible legal support for content creators, we propose a structured approach that combines semantic search with legal knowledge graphs and court citation networks to improve retrieval quality and reasoning reliability. Our prototype models legal precedents at the statutory factor level (e.g., purpose, nature, amount, market effect) and incorporates citation-weighted graph representations to prioritize doctrinally authoritative sources. We use Chain-of-Thought reasoning and interleaved retrieval steps to better emulate legal reasoning. Preliminary testing suggests this method improves doctrinal relevance in the retrieval process, laying groundwork for future evaluation and deployment of LLM-based legal assistance tools.

We introduce the concept of "Legal Zero-Days" as a novel risk vector for advanced AI systems. Legal Zero-Days are previously undiscovered vulnerabilities in legal frameworks that, when exploited, can cause immediate and significant societal disruption without requiring litigation or other processes before impact. We present a risk model for identifying and evaluating these vulnerabilities, demonstrating their potential to bypass safeguards or impede government responses to AI incidents. Using the 2017 Australian dual citizenship crisis as a case study, we illustrate how seemingly minor legal oversights can lead to large-scale governance disruption. We develop a methodology for creating "legal puzzles" as evaluation instruments for assessing AI systems' capabilities to discover such vulnerabilities. Our findings suggest that while current AI models may not reliably find impactful Legal Zero-Days, future systems may develop this capability, presenting both risks and opportunities for improving legal robustness. This work contributes to the broader effort to identify and mitigate previously unrecognized risks from frontier AI systems.

Legal NLP benchmarks are overwhelmingly English-centric, leaving failure modes in morphologically rich, non-Latin-script languages undetected. We introduce UA-Legal-Bench, a five-task benchmark for evaluating large language models on Ukrainian legal reasoning, built from the Unified State Register of Court Decisions (EDRSR) -- one of the world's largest open judicial corpora (99.5 million decisions). The benchmark comprises: (1) case-type classification (4 classes, n=2,000), (2) judgment form classification (4 classes, n=2,000), (3) case-outcome prediction (6 classes, n=800), (4) legal norm extraction (n=1,794), and (5) cause category prediction (22 classes, n=1,871). We evaluate 11 LLMs (3B--675B) from five families under zero-shot and 3-shot prompting via AWS Bedrock with 158K API calls. Our results reveal sharply task-dependent few-shot effects: few-shot prompting improves judgment form classification by up to +38.6 pp but has mixed effects on outcome prediction. We show that accuracy is misleading on imbalanced legal tasks: the model with highest COP accuracy (62%) is a majority-class predictor (macro-F1: 23%), while the genuinely best model scores only 44% macro-F1. Within-fam

In an era dominated by Large Language Models (LLMs), understanding their capabilities and limitations, especially in high-stakes fields like law, is crucial. While LLMs such as Meta's LLaMA, OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's Gemini, DeepSeek, and other emerging models are increasingly integrated into legal workflows, their performance in multilingual, jurisdictionally diverse, and adversarial contexts remains insufficiently explored. This work evaluates LLaMA and Gemini on multilingual legal and non-legal benchmarks, and assesses their adversarial robustness in legal tasks through character and word-level perturbations. We use an LLM-as-a-Judge approach for human-aligned evaluation. We moreover present an open-source, modular evaluation pipeline designed to support multilingual, task-diverse benchmarking of any combination of LLMs and datasets, with a particular focus on legal tasks, including classification, summarization, open questions, and general reasoning. Our findings confirm that legal tasks pose significant challenges for LLMs with accuracies often below 50% on legal reasoning benchmarks such as LEXam, compared to over 70% on general-purpose tasks like XNLI. In addition, while En

Representing the temporal evolution of legal norms is a critical challenge for automated processing. While foundational frameworks exist, they lack a formal pattern for granular, component-level versioning, hindering the deterministic point-in-time reconstruction of legal texts required by reliable AI applications. This paper proposes a structured, temporal modeling pattern grounded in the LRMoo ontology. Our approach models a norm's evolution as a diachronic chain of versioned F1 Works, distinguishing between language-agnostic Temporal Versions (TV), each being a distinct Work, and their monolingual Language Versions (LV), modeled as F2 Expressions. The legislative amendment process is formalized through event-centric modeling, allowing changes to be traced precisely. Using the Brazilian Constitution as a case study, we demonstrate that our architecture enables the exact reconstruction of any part of a legal text as it existed on a specific date. This provides a verifiable semantic backbone for legal knowledge graphs, offering a deterministic foundation for trustworthy legal AI.

Do large language models (LLMs) know the law? These models are increasingly being used to augment legal practice, education, and research, yet their revolutionary potential is threatened by the presence of hallucinations -- textual output that is not consistent with legal facts. We present the first systematic evidence of these hallucinations, documenting LLMs' varying performance across jurisdictions, courts, time periods, and cases. Our work makes four key contributions. First, we develop a typology of legal hallucinations, providing a conceptual framework for future research in this area. Second, we find that legal hallucinations are alarmingly prevalent, occurring between 58% of the time with ChatGPT 4 and 88% with Llama 2, when these models are asked specific, verifiable questions about random federal court cases. Third, we illustrate that LLMs often fail to correct a user's incorrect legal assumptions in a contra-factual question setup. Fourth, we provide evidence that LLMs cannot always predict, or do not always know, when they are producing legal hallucinations. Taken together, our findings caution against the rapid and unsupervised integration of popular LLMs into legal ta

The legal domain is a vast and complex field that involves a considerable amount of text analysis, including laws, legal arguments, and legal opinions. Legal practitioners must analyze these texts to understand legal cases, research legal precedents, and prepare legal documents. The size of legal opinions continues to grow, making it increasingly challenging to develop a model that can accurately predict the rhetorical roles of legal opinions given their complexity and diversity. In this research paper, we propose a novel model architecture for automatically predicting rhetorical roles using pre-trained language models (PLMs) enhanced with knowledge of sentence position information within a document. Based on an annotated corpus from the LegalEval@SemEval2023 competition, we demonstrate that our approach requires fewer parameters, resulting in lower computational costs when compared to complex architectures employing a hierarchical model in a global-context, yet it achieves great performance. Moreover, we show that adding more attention to a hierarchical model based only on BERT in the local-context, along with incorporating sentence position information, enhances the results.

In high-stakes legal domains, retrieval must preserve not only semantic relevance, but also the hierarchy, temporality, and causal provenance of legal norms. Standard Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), based mainly on semantic similarity over text fragments, cannot reliably provide this level of control. Prior work on SAT-Graph RAG addressed the representation problem by modeling legal materials as structure-aware temporal knowledge graphs. This paper addresses the next problem: how an LLM-based reasoning agent can interact with such a graph without reintroducing unreliable retrieval behavior. We specify the SAT-Graph API, a canonical primitive interface for auditable reasoning over temporal knowledge graphs, developed and illustrated in the legal domain. The API exposes typed, atomic, and composable primitives that mediate between a probabilistic language model and a deterministic symbolic substrate. Its design follows Probability Isolation: uncertainty is confined to intent translation, semantic anchoring, and final narrative synthesis, while structural, temporal, and causal graph traversals are executed through deterministic operations over canonical anchors. The interface sh