This paper presents the results of the LegalLens Shared Task, focusing on detecting legal violations within text in the wild across two sub-tasks: LegalLens-NER for identifying legal violation entities and LegalLens-NLI for associating these violations with relevant legal contexts and affected individuals. Using an enhanced LegalLens dataset covering labor, privacy, and consumer protection domains, 38 teams participated in the task. Our analysis reveals that while a mix of approaches was used, the top-performing teams in both tasks consistently relied on fine-tuning pre-trained language models, outperforming legal-specific models and few-shot methods. The top-performing team achieved a 7.11% improvement in NER over the baseline, while NLI saw a more marginal improvement of 5.7%. Despite these gains, the complexity of legal texts leaves room for further advancements.

In this study, we focus on two main tasks, the first for detecting legal violations within unstructured textual data, and the second for associating these violations with potentially affected individuals. We constructed two datasets using Large Language Models (LLMs) which were subsequently validated by domain expert annotators. Both tasks were designed specifically for the context of class-action cases. The experimental design incorporated fine-tuning models from the BERT family and open-source LLMs, and conducting few-shot experiments using closed-source LLMs. Our results, with an F1-score of 62.69% (violation identification) and 81.02% (associating victims), show that our datasets and setups can be used for both tasks. Finally, we publicly release the datasets and the code used for the experiments in order to advance further research in the area of legal natural language processing (NLP).

The research field of Legal Natural Language Processing (NLP) has been very active recently, with Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) becoming one of the most extensively studied tasks. To date, most publicly released LJP datasets originate from countries with civil law. In this work, we release, for the first time, a challenging LJP dataset focused on class action cases in the US. It is the first dataset in the common law system that focuses on the harder and more realistic task involving the complaints as input instead of the often used facts summary written by the court. Additionally, we study the difficulty of the task by collecting expert human predictions, showing that even human experts can only reach 53% accuracy on this dataset. Our Longformer model clearly outperforms the human baseline (63%), despite only considering the first 2,048 tokens. Furthermore, we perform a detailed error analysis and find that the Longformer model is significantly better calibrated than the human experts. Finally, we publicly release the dataset and the code used for the experiments.