We find that the best publicly available LLMs like GPT-4 and Claude currently perform poorly on basic legal text handling. This motivates the creation of a benchmark consisting of examples that lawyers and paralegals would expect LLMs to handle zero-shot, such as looking up the text at a line of a witness deposition or at a subsection of a contract. LLMs’ poor performance on this benchmark casts into doubt their reliability as-is for legal practice. However, fine-tuning on our training set brings even a small model to near-perfect performance. This benchmark will be useful for fine-tuning LLMs for downstream legal tasks, as well as for tracking LLMs’ reliability as-is for basic legal tasks.

Large Language Models (LLMs) show promise as a writing aid for professionals performing legal analyses. However, LLMs can often hallucinate in this setting, in ways difficult to recognize by non-professionals and existing text evaluation metrics. In this work, we pose the question: when can machine-generated legal analysis be evaluated as acceptable? We introduce the neutral notion of gaps – as opposed to hallucinations in a strict erroneous sense – to refer to the difference between human-written and machine-generated legal analysis. Gaps do not always equate to invalid generation. Working with legal experts, we consider the CLERC generation task proposed in Hou et al. (2024b), leading to a taxonomy, a fine-grained detector for predicting gap categories, and an annotated dataset for automatic evaluation. Our best detector achieves 67% F1 score and 80% precision on the test set. Employing this detector as an automated metric on legal analysis generated by SOTA LLMs, we find around 80% contain hallucinations of different kinds.

The standard approach for inducing narrative chains considers statistics gathered per individual document. We consider whether statistics gathered using cross-document relations can lead to improved chain induction. Our study is motivated by legal narratives, where cases typically cite thematically similar cases. We consider four novel variations on pointwise mutual information (PMI), each accounting for cross-document relations in a different way. One proposed PMI variation performs 58% better relative to standard PMI on recall@50 and induces qualitatively better narrative chains.