With the increase in legislative documents at the EU, the number of new terms and their definitions is increasing as well. As per the Joint Practical Guide of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, terms used in legal documents shall be consistent, and identical concepts shall be expressed without departing from their meaning in ordinary, legal, or technical language. Thus, while drafting a new legislative document, having a framework that provides insights about existing definitions and helps define new terms based on a document's context will support such harmonized legal definitions across different regulations and thus avoid ambiguities. In this paper, we present LexDrafter, a framework that assists in drafting Definitions articles for legislative documents using retrieval augmented generation (RAG) and existing term definitions present in different legislative documents. For this, definition elements are built by extracting definitions from existing documents. Using definition elements and RAG, a Definitions article can be suggested on demand for a legislative document that is being drafted. We demonstrate and evaluate the functionality of LexDrafter using a collection of EU documents from the energy domain.

In this work, we conduct a detailed analysis on the performance of legal-oriented pre-trained language models (PLMs). We examine the interplay between their original objective, acquired knowledge, and legal language understanding capacities which we define as the upstream, probing, and downstream performance, respectively. We consider not only the models' size but also the pre-training corpora used as important dimensions in our study. To this end, we release a multinational English legal corpus (LeXFiles) and a legal knowledge probing benchmark (LegalLAMA) to facilitate training and detailed analysis of legal-oriented PLMs. We release two new legal PLMs trained on LeXFiles and evaluate them alongside others on LegalLAMA and LexGLUE. We find that probing performance strongly correlates with upstream performance in related legal topics. On the other hand, downstream performance is mainly driven by the model's size and prior legal knowledge which can be estimated by upstream and probing performance. Based on these findings, we can conclude that both dimensions are important for those seeking the development of domain-specific PLMs.

In regions that practice common law, relevant historical cases are essential references for sentencing. To help legal practitioners find previous judgement easier, this paper aims to label each court judgement by some tags. These tags are legally important to summarize the judgement and can guide the user to similar judgements. We introduce a heuristic system to solve the problem, which starts from Aspect-driven Topic Modeling and uses Dependency Parsing and Constituency Parsing for phrase generation. We also construct a legal term tree for Hong Kong and implemented a sentence simplification module to support the system. Finally, we propose a similar document recommendation algorithm based on the generated tags. It enables users to find similar documents based on a few selected aspects rather than the whole passage. Experiment results show that this system is the best approach for this specific task. It is better than simple term extraction method in terms of summarizing the document, and the recommendation algorithm is more effective than full-text comparison approaches. We believe that the system has huge potential in law as well as in other areas.

When looking for answers to legal questions, people increasingly start their searches online. But what they find isn't always very useful--prompting the law schools at Stanford University and Suffolk University to team up to harness artificial intelligence (AI) to help people identify their specific legal issues. Historically, machines have struggled to understand context in human speech. For example, if someone says, "I'm getting kicked out of my house," most people understand that the person is not being physically kicked but is rather being removed from his or her home--or, to use the legal term, evicted. But machines typically can't understand "kicked out of my house" as "evicted" without being trained through a large number of similar questions.