Legal case retrieval (LCR) aims to automatically scour for comparable legal cases based on a given query, which is crucial for offering relevant precedents to support the judgment in intelligent legal systems. Due to similar goals, it is often associated with a similar case matching (LCM) task. To address them, a daunting challenge is assessing the uniquely defined legal-rational similarity within the judicial domain, which distinctly deviates from the semantic similarities in general text retrieval. Past works either tagged domain-specific factors or incorporated reference laws to capture legal-rational information. However, their heavy reliance on expert or unrealistic assumptions restricts their practical applicability in real-world scenarios. In this paper, we propose an end-to-end model named LCM-LAI to solve the above challenges. Through meticulous theoretical analysis, LCM-LAI employs a dependent multi-task learning framework to capture legal-rational information within legal cases by a law article prediction (LAP) sub-task, without any additional assumptions in inference. Besides, LCM-LAI proposes an article-aware attention mechanism to evaluate the legal-rational similarity between across-case sentences based on law distribution, which is more effective than conventional semantic similarity. Weperform a series of exhaustive experiments including two different tasks involving four real-world datasets. Results demonstrate that LCM-LAI achieves state-of-the-art performance.

In this paper, we propose CitaLaw, the first benchmark designed to evaluate LLMs' ability to produce legally sound responses with appropriate citations. CitaLaw features a diverse set of legal questions for both laypersons and practitioners, paired with a comprehensive corpus of law articles and precedent cases as a reference pool. This framework enables LLM-based systems to retrieve supporting citations from the reference corpus and align these citations with the corresponding sentences in their responses. Moreover, we introduce syllogism-inspired evaluation methods to assess the legal alignment between retrieved references and LLM-generated responses, as well as their consistency with user questions. Extensive experiments on 2 open-domain and 7 legal-specific LLMs demonstrate that integrating legal references substantially enhances response quality. Furthermore, our proposed syllogism-based evaluation method exhibits strong agreement with human judgments.

Court efficiency is vital for social stability. However, in most countries around the world, the grassroots courts face case backlogs, with decisions relying heavily on judicial personnel's cognitive labor, lacking intelligent tools to improve efficiency. To address this issue, we propose an efficient law article recommendation approach utilizing a Knowledge Graph (KG) and a Large Language Model (LLM). Firstly, we propose a Case-Enhanced Law Article Knowledge Graph (CLAKG) as a database to store current law statutes, historical case information, and correspondence between law articles and historical cases. Additionally, we introduce an automated CLAKG construction method based on LLM. On this basis, we propose a closed-loop law article recommendation method. Finally, through a series of experiments using judgment documents from the website "China Judgements Online", we have improved the accuracy of law article recommendation in cases from 0.549 to 0.694, demonstrating that our proposed method significantly outperforms baseline approaches.

Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) aims to automatically predict a law case's judgment results based on the text description of its facts. In practice, the confusing law articles (or charges) problem frequently occurs, reflecting that the law cases applicable to similar articles (or charges) tend to be misjudged. Although some recent works based on prior knowledge solve this issue well, they ignore that confusion also occurs between law articles with a high posterior semantic similarity due to the data imbalance problem instead of only between the prior highly similar ones, which is this work's further finding. This paper proposes an end-to-end model named \textit{D-LADAN} to solve the above challenges. On the one hand, D-LADAN constructs a graph among law articles based on their text definition and proposes a graph distillation operation (GDO) to distinguish the ones with a high prior semantic similarity. On the other hand, D-LADAN presents a novel momentum-updated memory mechanism to dynamically sense the posterior similarity between law articles (or charges) and a weighted GDO to adaptively capture the distinctions for revising the inductive bias caused by the data imbalance problem. We perform extensive experiments to demonstrate that D-LADAN significantly outperforms state-of-the-art methods in accuracy and robustness.

Legal judgment prediction is essential for enhancing judicial efficiency. In this work, we identify that existing large language models (LLMs) underperform in this domain due to challenges in understanding case complexities and distinguishing between similar charges. To adapt LLMs for effective legal judgment prediction, we introduce the Ask-Discriminate-Predict (ADAPT) reasoning framework inspired by human judicial reasoning. ADAPT involves decomposing case facts, discriminating among potential charges, and predicting the final judgment. We further enhance LLMs through fine-tuning with multi-task synthetic trajectories to improve legal judgment prediction accuracy and efficiency under our ADAPT framework. Extensive experiments conducted on two widely-used datasets demonstrate the superior performance of our framework in legal judgment prediction, particularly when dealing with complex and confusing charges.

Legal case retrieval for sourcing similar cases is critical in upholding judicial fairness. Different from general web search, legal case retrieval involves processing lengthy, complex, and highly specialized legal documents. Existing methods in this domain often overlook the incorporation of legal expert knowledge, which is crucial for accurately understanding and modeling legal cases, leading to unsatisfactory retrieval performance. This paper introduces KELLER, a legal knowledge-guided case reformulation approach based on large language models (LLMs) for effective and interpretable legal case retrieval. By incorporating professional legal knowledge about crimes and law articles, we enable large language models to accurately reformulate the original legal case into concise sub-facts of crimes, which contain the essential information of the case. Extensive experiments on two legal case retrieval benchmarks demonstrate superior retrieval performance and robustness on complex legal case queries of KELLER over existing methods.

In this paper, we address the issue of using logic rules to explain the results from legal case retrieval. The task is critical to legal case retrieval because the users (e.g., lawyers or judges) are highly specialized and require the system to provide logical, faithful, and interpretable explanations before making legal decisions. Recently, research efforts have been made to learn explainable legal case retrieval models. However, these methods usually select rationales (key sentences) from the legal cases as explanations, failing to provide faithful and logically correct explanations. In this paper, we propose Neural-Symbolic enhanced Legal Case Retrieval (NS-LCR), a framework that explicitly conducts reasoning on the matching of legal cases through learning case-level and law-level logic rules. The learned rules are then integrated into the retrieval process in a neuro-symbolic manner. Benefiting from the logic and interpretable nature of the logic rules, NS-LCR is equipped with built-in faithful explainability. We also show that NS-LCR is a model-agnostic framework that can be plugged in for multiple legal retrieval models. To showcase NS-LCR's superiority, we enhance existing benchmarks by adding manually annotated logic rules and introducing a novel explainability metric using Large Language Models (LLMs). Our comprehensive experiments reveal NS-LCR's effectiveness for ranking, alongside its proficiency in delivering reliable explanations for legal case retrieval.

Most existing Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) models focus on discovering the legal triggers in the criminal fact description. However, in real-world scenarios, a professional judge not only needs to assimilate the law case experience that thrives on past sentenced legal judgments but also depends on the professional legal grounded reasoning that learned from professional legal knowledge. In this paper, we propose a LegalDuet model, which pretrains language models to learn a tailored embedding space for making legal judgments. It proposes a dual-view legal clue reasoning mechanism, which derives from two reasoning chains of judges: 1) Law Case Reasoning, which makes legal judgments according to the judgment experiences learned from analogy/confusing legal cases; 2) Legal Ground Reasoning, which lies in matching the legal clues between criminal cases and legal decisions. Our experiments show that LegalDuet achieves state-of-the-art performance on the CAIL2018 dataset and outperforms baselines with about 4% improvements on average. Our dual-view reasoning based pretraining can capture critical legal clues to learn a tailored embedding space to distinguish criminal cases. It reduces LegalDuet's uncertainty during prediction and brings pretraining advances to the confusing/low frequent charges. All codes are available at https://github.com/NEUIR/LegalDuet.

Multiple defendants in a criminal fact description generally exhibit complex interactions, and cannot be well handled by existing Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) methods which focus on predicting judgment results (e.g., law articles, charges, and terms of penalty) for single-defendant cases. To address this problem, we propose the task of multi-defendant LJP, which aims to automatically predict the judgment results for each defendant of multi-defendant cases. Two challenges arise with the task of multi-defendant LJP: (1) indistinguishable judgment results among various defendants; and (2) the lack of a real-world dataset for training and evaluation. To tackle the first challenge, we formalize the multi-defendant judgment process as hierarchical reasoning chains and introduce a multi-defendant LJP method, named Hierarchical Reasoning Network (HRN), which follows the hierarchical reasoning chains to determine criminal relationships, sentencing circumstances, law articles, charges, and terms of penalty for each defendant. To tackle the second challenge, we collect a real-world multi-defendant LJP dataset, namely MultiLJP, to accelerate the relevant research in the future. Extensive experiments on MultiLJP verify the effectiveness of our proposed HRN.

Given the fact description text of a legal case, legal judgment prediction (LJP) aims to predict the case's charge, law article and penalty term. A core problem of LJP is how to distinguish confusing legal cases, where only subtle text differences exist. Previous studies fail to distinguish different classification errors with a standard cross-entropy classification loss, and ignore the numbers in the fact description for predicting the term of penalty. To tackle these issues, in this work, first, we propose a moco-based supervised contrastive learning to learn distinguishable representations, and explore the best strategy to construct positive example pairs to benefit all three subtasks of LJP simultaneously. Second, in order to exploit the numbers in legal cases for predicting the penalty terms of certain cases, we further enhance the representation of the fact description with extracted crime amounts which are encoded by a pre-trained numeracy model. Extensive experiments on public benchmarks show that the proposed method achieves new state-of-the-art results, especially on confusing legal cases. Ablation studies also demonstrate the effectiveness of each component.