Despite advances in legal NLP, no comprehensive evaluation covering multiple legal-specific LLMs currently exists for contract classification tasks in contract understanding. To address this gap, we present an evaluation of 10 legal-specific LLMs on three English language contract understanding tasks and compare them with 7 general-purpose LLMs. The results show that legal-specific LLMs consistently outperform general-purpose models, especially on tasks requiring nuanced legal understanding. Legal-BERT and Contracts-BERT establish new SOTAs on two of the three tasks, despite having 69% fewer parameters than the best-performing general-purpose LLM. We also identify CaseLaw-BERT and LexLM as strong additional baselines for contract understanding. Our results provide a holistic evaluation of legal-specific LLMs and will facilitate the development of more accurate contract understanding systems.

The assessment of legal problems requires the consideration of a specific legal system and its levels of abstraction, from constitutional law to statutory law to case law. The extent to which Large Language Models (LLMs) internalize such legal systems is unknown. In this paper, we propose and investigate different approaches to condition LLMs at different levels of abstraction in legal systems. This paper examines different approaches to conditioning LLMs at multiple levels of abstraction in legal systems to detect potentially punishable hate speech. We focus on the task of classifying whether a specific social media posts falls under the criminal offense of incitement to hatred as prescribed by the German Criminal Code. The results show that there is still a significant performance gap between models and legal experts in the legal assessment of hate speech, regardless of the level of abstraction with which the models were conditioned. Our analysis revealed, that models conditioned on abstract legal knowledge lacked deep task understanding, often contradicting themselves and hallucinating answers, while models using concrete legal knowledge performed reasonably well in identifying relevant target groups, but struggled with classifying target conducts.

This paper presents BR-TaxQA-R, a novel dataset designed to support question answering with references in the context of Brazilian personal income tax law. The dataset contains 715 questions from the 2024 official Q&A document published by Brazil's Internal Revenue Service, enriched with statutory norms and administrative rulings from the Conselho Administrativo de Recursos Fiscais (CARF). We implement a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) pipeline using OpenAI embeddings for searching and GPT-4o-mini for answer generation. We compare different text segmentation strategies and benchmark our system against commercial tools such as ChatGPT and Perplexity.ai using RAGAS-based metrics. Results show that our custom RAG pipeline outperforms commercial systems in Response Relevancy, indicating stronger alignment with user queries, while commercial models achieve higher scores in Factual Correctness and fluency . These findings highlight a trade-off between legally grounded generation and linguistic fluency. Crucially, we argue that human expert evaluation remains essential to ensure the legal validity of AI-generated answers in high-stakes domains such as taxation.

Analyzing large volumes of case law to uncover evolving legal principles, across multiple cases, on a given topic is a demanding task for legal professionals. Structured topical reports provide an effective solution by summarizing key issues, principles, and judgments, enabling comprehensive legal analysis on a particular topic. While prior works have advanced query-based individual case summarization, none have extended to automatically generating multi-case structured reports. To address this, we introduce LexGenie, an automated LLM-based pipeline designed to create structured reports using the entire body of case law on user-specified topics within the European Court of Human Rights jurisdiction. LexGenie retrieves, clusters, and organizes relevant passages by topic to generate a structured outline and cohesive content for each section. Expert evaluation confirms LexGenie's utility in producing structured reports that enhance efficient, scalable legal analysis.

Agentic Generative AI, powered by Large Language Models (LLMs) with Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), Knowledge Graphs (KGs), and Vector Stores (VSs), represents a transformative technology applicable to specialized domains such as legal systems, research, recommender systems, cybersecurity, and global security, including proliferation research. This technology excels at inferring relationships within vast unstructured or semi-structured datasets. The legal domain here comprises complex data characterized by extensive, interrelated, and semi-structured knowledge systems with complex relations. It comprises constitutions, statutes, regulations, and case law. Extracting insights and navigating the intricate networks of legal documents and their relations is crucial for effective legal research. Here, we introduce a generative AI system that integrates RAG, VS, and KG, constructed via Non-Negative Matrix Factorization (NMF), to enhance legal information retrieval and AI reasoning and minimize hallucinations. In the legal system, these technologies empower AI agents to identify and analyze complex connections among cases, statutes, and legal precedents, uncovering hidden relationships and predicting legal trends-challenging tasks that are essential for ensuring justice and improving operational efficiency. Our system employs web scraping techniques to systematically collect legal texts, such as statutes, constitutional provisions, and case law, from publicly accessible platforms like Justia. It bridges the gap between traditional keyword-based searches and contextual understanding by leveraging advanced semantic representations, hierarchical relationships, and latent topic discovery. This framework supports legal document clustering, summarization, and cross-referencing, for scalable, interpretable, and accurate retrieval for semi-structured data while advancing computational law and AI.

This paper addresses the challenges translating case law under Hong Kong's bilingual legal system. It highlights the initial success of translating all written statutes into Chinese before the 1997 handover, a task mandated by the Basic Law. The effort involved significant collaboration among legal, linguistic, and translation experts, resulting in a comprehensive and culturally appropriate bilingual legal system. However, translating case law remains a significant challenge due to the sheer volume and continuous growth of judicial decisions. The paper critiques the governments and judiciarys sporadic and uncoordinated efforts to translate case law, contrasting it with the thorough approach previously taken for statute translation. Although the government acknowledges the importance of legal bilingualism, it lacks a sustainable strategy for translating case law. The Judiciarys position that translating all judgments is unnecessary, unrealistic, and not cost-effectiveis analyzed and critiqued for its impact on legal transparency and public trust. A proposed solution involves leveraging machine translation technology through a human-machine interactive translation platform, which undergoes two major transitions. Initially based on a neural model, the platform transitions to using a large language model for improved translation accuracy. Furthermore, it evolves from a single-agent system to a multi-agent system, incorporating Translator, Annotator, and Proofreader agents. This multi-agent approach, supported by a grant, aims to facilitate efficient, high-quality translation of judicial judgments by integrating advanced artificial intelligence and continuous feedback mechanisms, thus better meeting the needs of a bilingual legal system.

Case law is instrumental in shaping our understanding of human rights, including the right to adequate housing. The HUDOC database provides access to the textual content of case law from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), along with some metadata. While this metadata includes valuable information, such as the application number and the articles addressed in a case, it often lacks detailed substantive insights, such as the specific issues a case covers. This underscores the need for detailed analysis to extract such information. However, given the size of the database - containing over 40,000 cases - an automated solution is essential. In this study, we focus on the right to adequate housing and aim to build models to detect cases related to housing and eviction issues. Our experiments show that the resulting models not only provide performance comparable to more sophisticated approaches but are also interpretable, offering explanations for their decisions by highlighting the most influential words. The application of these models led to the identification of new cases that were initially overlooked during data collection. This suggests that NLP approaches can be effectively applied to categorise case law based on the specific issues they address.

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.

Case law plays a crucial role in legal research, particularly in the context of human rights. Many international human rights conventions, such as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), are considered'living instruments', which means that human rights should be interpreted in light of present-day conditions and in accordance with developments in international law [1]. Fundamental human rights, such as the right to respect for private and family life, home, and correspondence as enshrined in Article 8 of the ECHR, serve as broad normative standards that (may) evolve in response to societal changes and international consensus. For example, the meaning of'correspondence' has significantly changed with the internet and the progression of technology, and also what is considered'family life' [2] or a'home' is ever-developing [3]. Consequently, the interpretation and application of human rights undergo continuous development, requiring legal scholars and practitioners to rely heavily on the case law established by international courts, such as the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). However, the volume of case law is ever-increasing, which makes it challenging for legal scholars to discover relevant cases and gain a comprehensive understanding of this vast amount of information.

Laypeople (i.e. individuals without legal training) may often have trouble resolving their legal problems. In this work, we present the JusticeBot methodology. This methodology can be used to build legal decision support tools, that support laypeople in exploring their legal rights in certain situations, using a hybrid case-based and rule-based reasoning approach. The system ask the user questions regarding their situation and provides them with legal information, references to previous similar cases and possible next steps. This information could potentially help the user resolve their issue, e.g. by settling their case or enforcing their rights in court. We present the methodology for building such tools, which consists of discovering typically applied legal rules from legislation and case law, and encoding previous cases to support the user. We also present an interface to build tools using this methodology and a case study of the first deployed JusticeBot version, focused on landlord-tenant disputes, which has been used by thousands of individuals.