Prevention of Future Deaths (PFD) reports, issued by coroners in England and Wales, flag systemic hazards that may lead to further loss of life. Analysis of these reports has previously been constrained by the manual effort required to identify and code relevant cases. In 2025, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) published a national thematic review of child-suicide PFD reports ($\leq$ 18 years), identifying 37 cases from January 2015 to November 2023 - a process based entirely on manual curation and coding. We evaluated whether a fully automated, open source "text-to-table" language-model pipeline (PFD Toolkit) could reproduce the ONS's identification and thematic analysis of child-suicide PFD reports, and assessed gains in efficiency and reliability. All 4,249 PFD reports published from July 2013 to November 2023 were processed via PFD Toolkit's large language model pipelines. Automated screening identified cases where the coroner attributed death to suicide in individuals aged 18 or younger, and eligible reports were coded for recipient category and 23 concern sub-themes, replicating the ONS coding frame. PFD Toolkit identified 72 child-suicide PFD reports - almost twice the ONS count. Three blinded clinicians adjudicated a stratified sample of 144 reports to validate the child-suicide screening. Against the post-consensus clinical annotations, the LLM-based workflow showed substantial to almost-perfect agreement (Cohen's $κ$ = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.66-0.98, raw agreement = 91%). The end-to-end script runtime was 8m 16s, transforming a process that previously took months into one that can be completed in minutes. This demonstrates that automated LLM analysis can reliably and efficiently replicate manual thematic reviews of coronial data, enabling scalable, reproducible, and timely insights for public health and safety. The PFD Toolkit is openly available for future research.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a ubiquitous concept in numerous domains, including the legal system. AI has the potential to revolutionize the functioning of the judiciary and the dispensation of justice. Incorporating AI into the legal system offers the prospect of enhancing decision-making for judges, lawyers, and legal professionals, while concurrently providing the public with more streamlined, efficient, and cost-effective services. The integration of AI into the legal landscape offers manifold benefits, encompassing tasks such as document review, legal research, contract analysis, case prediction, and decision-making. By automating laborious and error-prone procedures, AI has the capacity to alleviate the burden associated with these arduous tasks. Consequently, courts around the world have begun embracing AI technology as a means to enhance the administration of justice. However, alongside its potential advantages, the use of AI in the judiciary poses a range of ethical challenges. These ethical quandaries must be duly addressed to ensure the responsible and equitable deployment of AI systems. This article delineates the principal ethical challenges entailed in employing AI within the judiciary and provides recommendations to effectively address these issues.

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.

Tehran, Iran – Iran's Foreign Ministry and judiciary have confirmed that Iranian national Mohammad Abedini, who was arrested in Italy at the behest of the United States, has been released. Abedini was returned to Tehran after being arrested as part of a "misunderstanding", Mizan, the official news outlet of the judiciary, said on Sunday. The report, also aired by state television, said his release was secured after talks between the Iranian intelligence ministry and the Italian intelligence service. Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei in a short statement welcomed the release of the Iranian national, who is accused by Washington of involvement with a January 2024 drone attack on a US outpost in Jordan that killed three American soldiers. He stressed the ministry would defend the rights of Iranian nationals abroad.

England's 1,000-year-old legal system -- still steeped in traditions that include wearing wigs and robes -- has taken a cautious step into the future by giving judges permission to use artificial intelligence to help produce rulings. The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary last month said AI could help write opinions but stressed it shouldn't be used for research or legal analyses because the technology can fabricate information and provide misleading, inaccurate and biased information. "Judges do not need to shun the careful use of AI," said Master of the Rolls Geoffrey Vos, the second-highest ranking judge in England and Wales. "But they must ensure that they protect confidence and take full personal responsibility for everything they produce." At a time when scholars and legal experts are pondering a future when AI could replace lawyers, help select jurors or even decide cases, the approach spelled out Dec. 11 by the judiciary is restrained. But for a profession slow to embrace technological change, it's a proactive step as government and industry -- and society in general -- react to a rapidly advancing technology alternately portrayed as a panacea and a menace.

Large language models (LLMs) have the potential to transform the practice of law, but this potential is threatened by the presence of legal hallucinations -- responses from these models that are not consistent with legal facts. We investigate the extent of these hallucinations using an original suite of legal queries, comparing LLMs' responses to structured legal metadata and examining their consistency. Our work makes four key contributions: (1) We develop a typology of legal hallucinations, providing a conceptual framework for future research in this area. (2) We find that legal hallucinations are alarmingly prevalent, occurring between 69% of the time with ChatGPT 3.5 and 88% with Llama 2, when these models are asked specific, verifiable questions about random federal court cases. (3) We illustrate that LLMs often fail to correct a user's incorrect legal assumptions in a contra-factual question setup. (4) We provide evidence that LLMs cannot always predict, or do not always know, when they are producing legal hallucinations. Taken together, these findings caution against the rapid and unsupervised integration of popular LLMs into legal tasks. Even experienced lawyers must remain wary of legal hallucinations, and the risks are highest for those who stand to benefit from LLMs the most -- pro se litigants or those without access to traditional legal resources.

Manila, Philippines – Leila de Lima was released from detention last month into what the former Philippines senator calls "a whole new world". In 2016, then-President Rodrigo Duterte promised to "destroy" de Lima, one of the loudest critics of his deadly drug war. The president's supporters began targeting the first-term senator and former human rights commissioner – ridiculing her for an alleged romantic affair with her driver, and accusing her of involvement in drug trafficking. In February 2017, she was arrested on drug charges she denies and that international observers have said are politically motivated. "I had this deep sense of disbelief," de Lima told Al Jazeera. "I never thought that Mr Duterte would go to that extent, that length, of jailing me. I thought it would just be daily vilification, personal attacks, attacks against my womanhood."

The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) has significantly impacted the traditional judicial industry. Moreover, recently, with the development of AI-generated content (AIGC), AI and law have found applications in various domains, including image recognition, automatic text generation, and interactive chat. With the rapid emergence and growing popularity of large models, it is evident that AI will drive transformation in the traditional judicial industry. However, the application of legal large language models (LLMs) is still in its nascent stage. Several challenges need to be addressed. In this paper, we aim to provide a comprehensive survey of legal LLMs. We not only conduct an extensive survey of LLMs, but also expose their applications in the judicial system. We first provide an overview of AI technologies in the legal field and showcase the recent research in LLMs. Then, we discuss the practical implementation presented by legal LLMs, such as providing legal advice to users and assisting judges during trials. In addition, we explore the limitations of legal LLMs, including data, algorithms, and judicial practice. Finally, we summarize practical recommendations and propose future development directions to address these challenges.

This paper presents a classification model that predicts delays in Indian lower courts based on case information available at filing. The model is built on a dataset of 4.2 million court cases filed in 2010 and their outcomes over a 10-year period. The data set is drawn from 7000+ lower courts in India. The authors employed AutoML to develop a multi-class classification model over all periods of pendency and then used binary decision forest classifiers to improve predictive accuracy for the classification of delays. The best model achieved an accuracy of 81.4%, and the precision, recall, and F1 were found to be 0.81. The study demonstrates the feasibility of AI models for predicting delays in Indian courts, based on relevant data points such as jurisdiction, court, judge, subject, and the parties involved. The paper also discusses the results in light of relevant literature and suggests areas for improvement and future research. The authors have made the dataset and Python code files used for the analysis available for further research in the crucial and contemporary field of Indian judicial reform.

Law Minister Rijiju pitches for institutional arbitration; says AI can help arbitrators Law Minister Kiren Rijiju on Sunday batted for institutional arbitration in the country and pointed at loopholes in “ad hoc” arbitration, saying such proceedings are susceptible to court interventions which delay the final outcome. He also said artificial intelligence (AI) can help arbitrators in tasks such as document review and analysis, legal research, and drafting of awards. Addressing a Delhi Arbitration Weekend event at the Delhi High Court, he said majority of the people go for “ad hoc” arbitrations where the proceedings are not governed by pre-determined rules. As a result, these proceedings are susceptible to court intervention at various stages which leads to delay in final decision for the parties involved. On the other hand, Rijiju pointed out, institutional arbitrations are regulated by the rules of an institution that provide for a more structured and secure process. In addition, parties can benefit from the expertise of the arbitral institution having good quality infrastructure, he said. He said the government’s Vision 2030 is to see arbitration space remain dynamic, amendable to adopting best practices, as also conscious of the needs of time-bound and final adjudication of contractual disputes....