We present Legal Argument Reasoning (LAR), a novel task designed to evaluate the legal reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs). The task requires selecting the correct next statement (from multiple choice options) in a chain of legal arguments from court proceedings, given the facts of the case. We constructed a dataset (LAR-ECHR) for this task using cases from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). We evaluated seven general-purpose LLMs on LAR-ECHR and found that (a) the ranking of the models is aligned with that of LegalBench, an established US-based legal reasoning benchmark, even though LAR-ECHR is based on EU law, (b) LAR-ECHR distinguishes top models more clearly, compared to LegalBench, (c) even the best model (GPT-4o) obtains 75.8% accuracy on LAR-ECHR, indicating significant potential for further model improvement. The process followed to construct LAR-ECHR can be replicated with cases from other legal systems.

The SemEval task on Argument Reasoning in Civil Procedure is challenging in that it requires understanding legal concepts and inferring complex arguments. Currently, most Large Language Models (LLM) excelling in the legal realm are principally purposed for classification tasks, hence their reasoning rationale is subject to contention. The approach we advocate involves using a powerful teacher-LLM (ChatGPT) to extend the training dataset with explanations and generate synthetic data. The resulting data are then leveraged to fine-tune a small student-LLM. Contrary to previous work, our explanations are not directly derived from the teacher’s internal knowledge. Instead they are grounded in authentic human analyses, therefore delivering a superior reasoning signal. Additionally, a new ‘mutation’ method generates artificial data instances inspired from existing ones. We are publicly releasing the explanations as an extension to the original dataset, along with the synthetic dataset and the prompts that were used to generate both. Our system ranked 15th in the SemEval competition. It outperforms its own teacher and can produce explanations aligned with the original human analyses, as verified by legal experts.