Summarization of legal judgments poses a heavy cognitive burden on law practitioners due to the complexity of the language, context-sensitive legal jargon, and the length of the document. Therefore, the automatic summarization of legal documents has attracted serious attention from natural language processing researchers. Since the abstractive summaries of legal documents generated by deep neural methods remain prone to the risk of misrepresenting nuanced legal jargon or overlooking key contextual details, we envisage a rising trend toward the use of extractive case summarizers. Given the high cost of human annotation for gold standard extractive summaries, we engineer a light and transparent pipeline that leverages existing abstractive gold standard summaries to create the corresponding extractive gold standard versions. The approach ensures that the experts` opinions ensconced in the original gold standard abstractive summaries are carried over to the transformed extractive summaries. We aim to augment seven existing case summarization datasets, which include abstractive summaries, by incorporating corresponding extractive summaries and create an enriched data resource for case summarization research community. To ensure the quality of the augmented extractive summaries, we perform an extensive comparative evaluation with the original abstractive gold standard summaries covering structural, lexical, and semantic dimensions. We also compare the domain-level information of the two summaries. We commit to release the augmented datasets in the public domain for use by the research community and believe that the resource will offer opportunities to advance the field of automatic summarization of legal documents.

Identification of rhetorical roles like facts, arguments, and final judgments is central to understanding a legal case document and can lend power to other downstream tasks like legal case summarization and judgment prediction. However, there are several challenges to this task. Legal documents are often unstructured and contain a specialized vocabulary, making it hard for conventional transformer models to understand them. Additionally, these documents run into several pages, which makes it difficult for neural models to capture the entire context at once. Lastly, there is a dearth of annotated legal documents to train deep learning models. Previous state-of-the-art approaches for this task have focused on using neural models like BiLSTM-CRF or have explored different embedding techniques to achieve decent results. While such techniques have shown that better embedding can result in improved model performance, not many models have focused on utilizing attention for learning better embeddings in sentences of a document. Additionally, it has been recently shown that advanced techniques like multi-task learning can help the models learn better representations, thereby improving performance. In this paper, we combine these two aspects by proposing a novel family of multi-task learning-based models for rhetorical role labeling, named MARRO, that uses transformer-inspired multi-headed attention. Using label shift as an auxiliary task, we show that models from the MARRO family achieve state-of-the-art results on two labeled datasets for rhetorical role labeling, from the Indian and UK Supreme Courts.

Legal case documents play a critical role in judicial proceedings. As the number of cases continues to rise, the reliance on manual drafting of legal case documents is facing increasing pressure and challenges. The development of large language models (LLMs) offers a promising solution for automating document generation. However, existing benchmarks fail to fully capture the complexities involved in drafting legal case documents in real-world scenarios. To address this gap, we introduce CaseGen, the benchmark for multi-stage legal case documents generation in the Chinese legal domain. CaseGen is based on 500 real case samples annotated by legal experts and covers seven essential case sections. It supports four key tasks: drafting defense statements, writing trial facts, composing legal reasoning, and generating judgment results. To the best of our knowledge, CaseGen is the first benchmark designed to evaluate LLMs in the context of legal case document generation. To ensure an accurate and comprehensive evaluation, we design the LLM-as-a-judge evaluation framework and validate its effectiveness through human annotations. We evaluate several widely used general-domain LLMs and legal-specific LLMs, highlighting their limitations in case document generation and pinpointing areas for potential improvement. This work marks a step toward a more effective framework for automating legal case documents drafting, paving the way for the reliable application of AI in the legal field. The dataset and code are publicly available at https://github.com/CSHaitao/CaseGen.

Legal systems worldwide are inundated with exponential growth in cases and documents. There is an imminent need to develop NLP and ML techniques for automatically processing and understanding legal documents to streamline the legal system. However, evaluating and comparing various NLP models designed specifically for the legal domain is challenging. This paper addresses this challenge by proposing IL-TUR: Benchmark for Indian Legal Text Understanding and Reasoning. IL-TUR contains monolingual (English, Hindi) and multi-lingual (9 Indian languages) domain-specific tasks that address different aspects of the legal system from the point of view of understanding and reasoning over Indian legal documents. We present baseline models (including LLM-based) for each task, outlining the gap between models and the ground truth. To foster further research in the legal domain, we create a leaderboard (available at: https://exploration-lab.github.io/IL-TUR/) where the research community can upload and compare legal text understanding systems.

Legal professionals need to write analyses that rely on citations to relevant precedents, i.e., previous case decisions. Intelligent systems assisting legal professionals in writing such documents provide great benefits but are challenging to design. Such systems need to help locate, summarize, and reason over salient precedents in order to be useful. To enable systems for such tasks, we work with legal professionals to transform a large open-source legal corpus into a dataset supporting two important backbone tasks: information retrieval (IR) and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). This dataset CLERC (Case Law Evaluation Retrieval Corpus), is constructed for training and evaluating models on their ability to (1) find corresponding citations for a given piece of legal analysis and to (2) compile the text of these citations (as well as previous context) into a cogent analysis that supports a reasoning goal. We benchmark state-of-the-art models on CLERC, showing that current approaches still struggle: GPT-4o generates analyses with the highest ROUGE F-scores but hallucinates the most, while zero-shot IR models only achieve 48.3% recall@1000.

In common law jurisdictions, legal practitioners rely on precedents to construct arguments, in line with the doctrine of \emph{stare decisis}. As the number of cases grow over the years, prior case retrieval (PCR) has garnered significant attention. Besides lacking real-world scale, existing PCR datasets do not simulate a realistic setting, because their queries use complete case documents while only masking references to prior cases. The query is thereby exposed to legal reasoning not yet available when constructing an argument for an undecided case as well as spurious patterns left behind by citation masks, potentially short-circuiting a comprehensive understanding of case facts and legal principles. To address these limitations, we introduce a PCR dataset based on judgements from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), which explicitly separate facts from arguments and exhibit precedential practices, aiding us to develop this PCR dataset to foster systems' comprehensive understanding. We benchmark different lexical and dense retrieval approaches with various negative sampling strategies, adapting them to deal with long text sequences using hierarchical variants. We found that difficulty-based negative sampling strategies were not effective for the PCR task, highlighting the need for investigation into domain-specific difficulty criteria. Furthermore, we observe performance of the dense models degrade with time and calls for further research into temporal adaptation of retrieval models. Additionally, we assess the influence of different views , Halsbury's and Goodhart's, in practice in ECtHR jurisdiction using PCR task.

Machine learning shows promise in predicting the outcome of legal cases, but most research has concentrated on civil law cases rather than case law systems. We identified two unique challenges in making legal case outcome predictions with case law. First, it is crucial to identify relevant precedent cases that serve as fundamental evidence for judges during decision-making. Second, it is necessary to consider the evolution of legal principles over time, as early cases may adhere to different legal contexts. In this paper, we proposed a new model named PILOT (PredictIng Legal case OuTcome) for case outcome prediction. It comprises two modules for relevant case retrieval and temporal pattern handling, respectively. To benchmark the performance of existing legal case outcome prediction models, we curated a dataset from a large-scale case law database. We demonstrate the importance of accurately identifying precedent cases and mitigating the temporal shift when making predictions for case law, as our method shows a significant improvement over the prior methods that focus on civil law case outcome predictions.

This paper introduces INACIA (Instru\c{c}\~ao Assistida com Intelig\^encia Artificial), a groundbreaking system designed to integrate Large Language Models (LLMs) into the operational framework of Brazilian Federal Court of Accounts (TCU). The system automates various stages of case analysis, including basic information extraction, admissibility examination, Periculum in mora and Fumus boni iuris analyses, and recommendations generation. Through a series of experiments, we demonstrate INACIA's potential in extracting relevant information from case documents, evaluating its legal plausibility, and formulating propositions for judicial decision-making. Utilizing a validation dataset alongside LLMs, our evaluation methodology presents an innovative approach to assessing system performance, correlating highly with human judgment. The results highlight INACIA's proficiency in handling complex legal tasks, indicating its suitability for augmenting efficiency and judicial fairness within legal systems. The paper also discusses potential enhancements and future applications, positioning INACIA as a model for worldwide AI integration in legal domains.

Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) is a judicial assistance system that recommends the legal components such as applicable statues, prison term and penalty term by analyzing the given input case document. Indian legal system is in the need of technical assistance such as artificial intelligence to solve the crores of pending cases in various courts for years and its being increased day to day. Most of the existing Indian models did not adequately concentrate on the semantics embedded in the fact description (FD) that impacts the decision. The proposed semantic extraction based LJP (SLJP) model provides the advantages of pretrained transformers for complex unstructured legal case document understanding and to generate embeddings. The model draws the in-depth semantics of the given FD at multiple levels i.e., chunk and case document level by following the divide and conquer approach. It creates the concise view of the given fact description using the extracted semantics as per the original court case document structure and predicts judgment using attention mechanism. We tested the model performance on two available Indian datasets Indian Legal Documents corpus (ILDC) and Indian Legal Statue Identification (ILSI) and got promising results. Also shown the highest performance and less performance degradation for increased epochs than base models on ILDC dataset.

This paper presents a deep learning-based system for efficient automatic case summarization. Leveraging state-of-the-art natural language processing techniques, the system offers both supervised and unsupervised methods to generate concise and relevant summaries of lengthy legal case documents. The user-friendly interface allows users to browse the system's database of legal case documents, select their desired case, and choose their preferred summarization method. The system generates comprehensive summaries for each subsection of the legal text as well as an overall summary. This demo streamlines legal case document analysis, potentially benefiting legal professionals by reducing workload and increasing efficiency. Future work will focus on refining summarization techniques and exploring the application of our methods to other types of legal texts.