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.

Statutory reasoning is the task of determining whether a given law – a part of a statute – applies to a given legal case. Previous work has shown that structured, logical representations of laws and cases can be leveraged to solve statutory reasoning, including on the StAtutory Reasoning Assessment dataset (SARA), but rely on costly human translation into structured representations. Here, we investigate a form of legal information extraction atop the SARA cases, illustrating how the task can be done with high performance. Further, we show how the performance of downstream symbolic reasoning directly correlates with the quality of the information extraction.

Event schemas are structured knowledge sources defining typical real-world scenarios (e.g., going to an airport). We present a framework for efficient human-in-the-loop construction of a schema library, based on a novel script induction system and a well-crafted interface that allows non-experts to “program” complex event structures. Associated with this work we release a schema library: a machine readable resource of 232 detailed event schemas, each of which describe a distinct typical scenario in terms of its relevant sub-event structure (what happens in the scenario), participants (who plays a role in the scenario), fine-grained typing of each participant, and the implied relational constraints between them. We make our schema library and the SchemaBlocks interface available online.

Statutory reasoning is the task of determining whether a legal statute, stated in natural language, applies to the text description of a case. Prior work introduced a resource that approached statutory reasoning as a monolithic textual entailment problem, with neural baselines performing nearly at-chance. To address this challenge, we decompose statutory reasoning into four types of language-understanding challenge problems, through the introduction of concepts and structure found in Prolog programs. Augmenting an existing benchmark, we provide annotations for the four tasks, and baselines for three of them. Models for statutory reasoning are shown to benefit from the additional structure, improving on prior baselines. Further, the decomposition into subtasks facilitates finer-grained model diagnostics and clearer incremental progress.

Producing diverse paraphrases of a sentence is a challenging task. Natural paraphrase corpora are scarce and limited, while existing large-scale resources are automatically generated via back-translation and rely on beam search, which tends to lack diversity. We describe ParaBank 2, a new resource that contains multiple diverse sentential paraphrases, produced from a bilingual corpus using negative constraints, inference sampling, and clustering. We show that ParaBank 2 significantly surpasses prior work in both lexical and syntactic diversity while being meaning-preserving, as measured by human judgments and standardized metrics. Further, we illustrate how such paraphrastic resources may be used to refine contextualized encoders, leading to improvements in downstream tasks.