We introduce ALARB, a dataset and suite of tasks designed to evaluate the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) within the Arabic legal domain. While existing Arabic benchmarks cover some knowledge-intensive tasks such as retrieval and understanding, substantial datasets focusing specifically on multistep reasoning for Arabic LLMs, especially in open-ended contexts, are lacking. The dataset comprises over 13K commercial court cases from Saudi Arabia, with each case including the facts presented, the reasoning of the court, the verdict, as well as the cited clauses extracted from the regulatory documents. We define a set of challenging tasks leveraging this dataset and reflecting the complexity of real-world legal reasoning, including verdict prediction, completion of reasoning chains in multistep legal arguments, and identification of relevant regulations based on case facts. We benchmark a representative selection of current open and closed Arabic LLMs on these tasks and demonstrate the dataset's utility for instruction tuning. Notably, we show that instruction-tuning a modest 12B parameter model using ALARB significantly enhances its performance in verdict prediction and Arabic verdict generation, reaching a level comparable to that of GPT-4o.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit remarkable capabilities, they also introduce significant safety and privacy risks. Current mitigation strategies often fail to preserve contextual reasoning capabilities in risky scenarios. Instead, they rely heavily on sensitive pattern matching to protect LLMs, which limits the scope. Furthermore, they overlook established safety and privacy standards, leading to systemic risks for legal compliance. To address these gaps, we formulate safety and privacy issues into contextualized compliance problems following the Contextual Integrity (CI) theory. Under the CI framework, we align our model with three critical regulatory standards: GDPR, EU AI Act, and HIPAA. Specifically, we employ reinforcement learning (RL) with a rule-based reward to incentivize contextual reasoning capabilities while enhancing compliance with safety and privacy norms. Through extensive experiments, we demonstrate that our method not only significantly enhances legal compliance (achieving a +8.58% accuracy improvement in safety/privacy benchmarks) but also further improves general reasoning capability. For OpenThinker-7B, a strong reasoning model that significantly outperforms its base model Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct across diverse subjects, our method enhances its general reasoning capabilities, with +2.05% and +8.98% accuracy improvement on the MMLU and LegalBench benchmark, respectively.

Legal decision-making process requires the availability of comprehensive and detailed legislative background knowledge and up-to-date information on legal cases and related sentences/decisions. Legal Knowledge Graphs (KGs) would be a valuable tool to facilitate access to legal information, to be queried and exploited for the purpose, and to enable advanced reasoning and machine learning applications. Indeed, legal KGs may act as knowledge intensive component to be used by pre-dictive machine learning solutions supporting the decision process of the legal expert. Nevertheless, a few KGs can be found in the legal domain. To fill this gap, we developed a legal KG targeting legal cases of violence against women, along with clear adopted methodologies. Specifically, the paper introduces two complementary approaches for automated legal KG construction; a systematic bottom-up approach, customized for the legal domain, and a new solution leveraging Large Language Models. Starting from legal sentences publicly available from the European Court of Justice, the solutions integrate structured data extraction, ontology development, and semantic enrichment to produce KGs tailored for legal cases involving violence against women. After analyzing and comparing the results of the two approaches, the developed KGs are validated via suitable competency questions. The obtained KG may be impactful for multiple purposes: can improve the accessibility to legal information both to humans and machine, can enable complex queries and may constitute an important knowledge component to be possibly exploited by machine learning tools tailored for predictive justice.

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.

Recently, large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, LLaMA, and Claude have prevailed in countless domains, including legal scenarios. With LLMs' rapid technological progress, the development of prompt engineering (PE) as an interface between the LLMs and real-world applications has drawn the attention of all developers. Various PE methods have been proposed to overcome real-world challenges, such as few-shot prompting, chain-of-thought, and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). However, RAG for legal judgment prediction (LJP) is still underexplored. To address this, we propose "Athena", a novel framework cultivating RAG as a core preprocess component to enhance LLMs' performance on specialized tasks. Athena constructs a knowledge base for accusations, attached with a semantic retrieval mechanism through vectorization. Our experiments show that Athena's overall performance has improved significantly, achieving state-of-the-art results on the CAIL2018 dataset. Our ablation study on the in-context window size parameter further reproduces LLMs' "lost-in-the-middle" phenomenon with a relative positional variation. And with moderate hyper-parameter-tuning, we can achieve at most 95% of accuracy accordingly. We also study the impact of query rewriting and data distribution, providing possible directions for future research based on former analyses.

This paper presents a method to evaluate the alignment between the decision-making logic of Large Language Models (LLMs) and human cognition in a case study on legal LLMs. Unlike traditional evaluations on language generation results, we propose to evaluate the correctness of the detailed decision-making logic of an LLM behind its seemingly correct outputs, which represents the core challenge for an LLM to earn human trust. To this end, we quantify the interactions encoded by the LLM as primitive decision-making logic, because recent theoretical achievements have proven several mathematical guarantees of the faithfulness of the interaction-based explanation. We design a set of metrics to evaluate the detailed decision-making logic of LLMs. Experiments show that even when the language generation results appear correct, a significant portion of the internal inference logic contains notable issues.

The way media reports on legal cases can significantly shape public opinion, often embedding subtle biases that influence societal views on justice and morality. Analyzing these biases requires a holistic approach that captures the emotional tone, moral framing, and specific events within the narratives. In this work we introduce E2MoCase, a novel dataset designed to facilitate the integrated analysis of emotions, moral values, and events within legal narratives and media coverage. By leveraging advanced models for emotion detection, moral value identification, and event extraction, E2MoCase offers a multi-dimensional perspective on how legal cases are portrayed in news articles.

Despite remarkable performance in legal consultation exhibited by legal Large Language Models(LLMs) combined with legal article retrieval components, there are still cases when the advice given is incorrect or baseless. To alleviate these problems, we propose {\bf ELLA}, a tool for {\bf E}mpowering {\bf L}LMs for interpretable, accurate, and informative {\bf L}egal {\bf A}dvice. ELLA visually presents the correlation between legal articles and LLM's response by calculating their similarities, providing users with an intuitive legal basis for the responses. Besides, based on the users' queries, ELLA retrieves relevant legal articles and displays them to users. Users can interactively select legal articles for LLM to generate more accurate responses. ELLA also retrieves relevant legal cases for user reference. Our user study shows that presenting the legal basis for the response helps users understand better. The accuracy of LLM's responses also improves when users intervene in selecting legal articles for LLM. Providing relevant legal cases also aids individuals in obtaining comprehensive information.

The process of annotating data within the legal sector is filled with distinct challenges that differ from other fields, primarily due to the inherent complexities of legal language and documentation. The initial task usually involves selecting an appropriate raw dataset that captures the intricate aspects of legal texts. Following this, extracting text becomes a complicated task, as legal documents often have complex structures, footnotes, references, and unique terminology. The importance of data cleaning is magnified in this context, ensuring that redundant information is eliminated while maintaining crucial legal details and context. Creating comprehensive yet straightforward annotation guidelines is imperative, as these guidelines serve as the road map for maintaining uniformity and addressing the subtle nuances of legal terminology. Another critical aspect is the involvement of legal professionals in the annotation process. Their expertise is valuable in ensuring that the data not only remains contextually accurate but also adheres to prevailing legal standards and interpretations. This paper provides an expanded view of these challenges and aims to offer a foundational understanding and guidance for researchers and professionals engaged in legal data annotation projects. In addition, we provide links to our created and fine-tuned datasets and language models. These resources are outcomes of our discussed projects and solutions to challenges faced while working on them.

Legal documents are indispensable in every country for legal practices and serve as the primary source of information regarding previous cases and employed statutes. In today's world, with an increasing number of judicial cases, it is crucial to systematically categorize past cases into subgroups, which can then be utilized for upcoming cases and practices. Our primary focus in this endeavor was to annotate cases using topic modeling algorithms such as Latent Dirichlet Allocation, Non-Negative Matrix Factorization, and BerTopic for a collection of lengthy legal documents from India and the UK. This step is crucial for distinguishing the generated labels between the two countries, highlighting the differences in the types of cases that arise in each jurisdiction. Furthermore, an analysis of the timeline of cases from India was conducted to discern the evolution of dominant topics over the years.