Reasoning-focused large language models (LLMs) are rapidly evolving across various domains, yet their capabilities in handling complex legal problems remains underexplored. In this paper, we introduce Unilaw-R1, a large language model tailored for legal reasoning. With a lightweight 7-billion parameter scale, Unilaw-R1 significantly reduces deployment cost while effectively tackling three core challenges in the legal domain: insufficient legal knowledge, unreliable reasoning logic, and weak business generalization. To address these issues, we first construct Unilaw-R1-Data, a high-quality dataset containing 17K distilled and screened chain-of-thought (CoT) samples. Based on this, we adopt a two-stage training strategy combining Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) and Reinforcement Learning (RL), which significantly boosts the performance on complex legal reasoning tasks and supports interpretable decision-making in legal AI applications. To assess legal reasoning ability, we also introduce Unilaw-R1-Eval, a dedicated benchmark designed to evaluate models across single- and multi-choice legal tasks. Unilaw-R1 demonstrates strong results on authoritative benchmarks, outperforming all models of similar scale and achieving performance on par with the much larger DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B (54.9%). Following domain-specific training, it also showed significant gains on LawBench and LexEval, exceeding Qwen-2.5-7B-Instruct (46.6%) by an average margin of 6.6%.

We introduce JBE-QA, a Japanese Bar Exam Question-Answering dataset to evaluate large language models' legal knowledge. Derived from the multiple-choice (tanto-shiki) section of the Japanese bar exam (2015-2024), JBE-QA provides the first comprehensive benchmark for Japanese legal-domain evaluation of LLMs. It covers the Civil Code, the Penal Code, and the Constitution, extending beyond the Civil Code focus of prior Japanese resources. Each question is decomposed into independent true/false judgments with structured contextual fields. The dataset contains 3,464 items with balanced labels. We evaluate 26 LLMs, including proprietary, open-weight, Japanese-specialised, and reasoning models. Our results show that proprietary models with reasoning enabled perform best, and the Constitution questions are generally easier than the Civil Code or the Penal Code questions.

In this study, we explore the fine-tuning of Large Language Models (LLMs) to better support policymakers in their crucial work of understanding, analyzing, and crafting legal regulations. To equip the model with a deep understanding of legal texts, we curated a supervised dataset tailored to the specific needs of the legal domain. Additionally, we integrated the Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) method, enabling the LLM to access and incorporate up-to-date legal knowledge from external sources. This combination of fine-tuning and RAG-based augmentation results in a tool that not only processes legal information but actively assists policymakers in interpreting regulations and drafting new ones that align with current needs. The results demonstrate that this approach can significantly enhance the effectiveness of legal research and regulation development, offering a valuable resource in the ever-evolving field of law.

The advancement of natural language processing for morphologically rich and moderately-resourced languages like Modern Greek has been hindered by architectural stagnation, data scarcity, and limited context processing capabilities, particularly in specialized domains such as law. In this work, we propose the Greek Embedding Models (GEMs), a new family of transformer-based language models, specifically developed to address these limitations through architectural diversity and enhanced data curation. The proposed family of models are trained on several large-scale, meticulously curated corpora, encompassing both comprehensive general-domain datasets and specialized legal collections, addressing the persistent data scarcity that has impeded Greek language modeling advancement. The proposed quality-based corpus curation methodology incorporates extensive preprocessing pipelines, sophisticated deduplication strategies and targeted repetition of high-quality legal sub-corpora to enhance domain adaptation. The GEMs family comprises both established architectures (RoBERTa and Longformer) and advanced models not previously applied to Greek (ELECTRA, ConvBERT, and ModernBERT), providing comprehensive coverage of modern transformer designs. Additionally, we introduce the first bilingual Greek-English embedding models tailored for cross-lingual legal applications. Comprehensive evaluation across three core natural language understanding benchmarks demonstrates that the proposed GEM-RoBERTa and GEM-ConvBERT achieve statistically significant performance improvements over established state-of-the-art models, with accuracy gains of up to 3.6\% while conducted statistical analysis using Friedman Aligned-Ranks and Finner post-hoc tests confirms the superiority of our approach across multiple evaluation metrics.

Large language models (LLMs) have made significant progress in natural language processing tasks and demonstrate considerable potential in the legal domain.

Multi-agent systems (MAS), leveraging the remarkable capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs), show great potential in addressing complex tasks. In this context, integrating MAS with legal tasks is a crucial step. While previous studies have developed legal benchmarks for LLM agents, none are specifically designed to consider the unique advantages of MAS, such as task decomposition, agent specialization, and flexible training. In fact, the lack of evaluation methods limits the potential of MAS in the legal domain. To address this gap, we propose MASLegalBench, a legal benchmark tailored for MAS and designed with a deductive reasoning approach. Our benchmark uses GDPR as the application scenario, encompassing extensive background knowledge and covering complex reasoning processes that effectively reflect the intricacies of real-world legal situations. Furthermore, we manually design various role-based MAS and conduct extensive experiments using different state-of-the-art LLMs. Our results highlight the strengths, limitations, and potential areas for improvement of existing models and MAS architectures.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly advanced the development of Legal Artificial Intelligence (Legal AI) in recent years, enhancing the efficiency and accuracy of legal tasks. To advance research and applications of LLM-based approaches in legal domain, this paper provides a comprehensive review of 16 legal LLMs series and 47 LLM-based frameworks for legal tasks, and also gather 15 benchmarks and 29 datasets to evaluate different legal capabilities. Additionally, we analyse the challenges and discuss future directions for LLM-based approaches in the legal domain. We hope this paper provides a systematic introduction for beginners and encourages future research in this field. Resources are available at https://github.com/ZhitianHou/LLMs4LegalAI.

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.

--In recent years, Unsupervised Domain Adaptation (UDA) has gained significant attention in the field of Natural Language Processing (NLP) owing to its ability to enhance model generalization across diverse domains. However, its application for knowledge transfer between distinct legal domains remains largely unexplored. T o address the challenges posed by lengthy and complex legal texts and the limited availability of large-scale annotated datasets, we propose JurisCTC, a novel model designed to improve the accuracy of Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) tasks. Unlike existing approaches, JurisCTC facilitates effective knowledge transfer across various legal domains and employs contrastive learning to distinguish samples from different domains. Specifically, for the LJP task, we enable knowledge transfer between civil and criminal law domains. Compared to other models and specific large language models (LLMs), JurisCTC demonstrates notable advancements, achieving peak accuracies of 76.59% and 78.83%, respectively. Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) refers to the task of forecasting court outcomes based on the facts of a legal case, as well as other relevant information such as arguments and claims presented in the case description. This field aims to leverage computational techniques to predict judicial decisions, offering significant benefits across various legal contexts. Automated LJP systems have considerable practical value: they can assist legal professionals in analyzing cases and providing consultation services to the public, thereby reducing legal costs and improving access to justice.