Large language models are increasingly applied to high-risk domains such as law, yet complex legal reasoning remains limited by two structural challenges. First, existing RAG and GraphRAG methods emphasize lexical or semantic similarity while overlooking normative relations among legal provisions. Second, vanilla Chain-of-Thought prompting may generate plausible rationales without enforcing the normative structure of legal reasoning. To deal with the bottleneck of pipelines in the legal reasoning domain, we propose LEGO, a dual-module framework that synergizes Legal Expert GraphRAG and expert Chain-of-thought for complex legal reasoning. ExpertGraphRAG uses an expert-annotated civil code graph encoding these normative relations with a greedy normative-coverage retrieval algorithm to dynamically extract instance-specific provision subgraphs, while ExpertCoT organizes the retrieved provisions and case facts into structured Provision-Fact-Conclusion reasoning. With a Qwen3-8B backbone, LEGO achieves 40.53% exact-match accuracy on LawExamQA_Civil, outperforming the evaluated RAG and CoT baselines and performing comparably to the evaluated larger models, while remaining robust on multi-hop questions. It also achieves the best results among the evaluated baselines on the open-ended benchmarks. Ablation studies confirm the individual and complementary contributions of both modules, demonstrating LEGO’s effectiveness in improving LLMs’ complex legal reasoning ability. Code and dataset can be found in the link: https://github.com/BLK-WHT/LEGO

Lawyer-client consultation is a critical starting point for legal services. Effective legal assistance hinges on eliciting sufficient and truthful information from clients in order to devise strategies that best protect their interests. This task requires Large Language Models (LLMs) not only to perform robust legal reasoning, but also to strategically elicit material facts through multi-turn interactions and effectively guide clients with diverse personalities. Yet existing legal benchmarks overlook this interactive capability. To fill this gap, we introduce DLawBench, a diagnostic benchmark for real-world legal consultation. Drawing on realistic client behavior, we characterize lawyer-client interactions into four types: Cooperative, Dependent, Withdrawn, and Adversarial. Using dialogues grounded in real cases, DLawBench evaluates whether LLMs can effectively conduct legal consultation under realistic conditions. DLawBench comprises 461 cases from Chinese and U.S. law, 5,532 paired fact entries, 3,411 inquiry rubrics, and 3,348 issue-resolution rubrics, and evaluates 26 representative LLMs. Systematic experiments show substantial headroom: the best-performing model, GPT-5.5, achieves only 0.562 on consultation-grounded legal reasoning. More importantly, DLawBench exposes both sycophancy in legal consultation and a paradox: models perform worse when clients need guidance most.

Legal relations serve as an important analytical framework for dispute resolution in civil cases. However, legal relations in Chinese civil cases remain underexplored in the field of legal AI, largely due to the absence of comprehensive schemas. In this work, we first introduce a comprehensive schema for legal relations in civil cases, which contains a hierarchical taxonomy and definitions of arguments. Based on this schema, we formulate a legal relation extraction task and present LexRel, an expert-annotated benchmark for legal relation extraction in the Chinese civil law domain. We use LexRel to evaluate state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) on legal relation extraction, showing that current LLMs exhibit significant limitations in accurately identifying civil legal relations. Furthermore, we demonstrate that explicitly incorporating information about legal relations leads to promising performance gains on other downstream legal AI tasks.

Legal RAG systems often retrieve passages by semantic relevance, lexical score, or citation match. In versioned legal corpora, however, a passage can be topically relevant and citation-matched while being legally invalid for the operative date. We study law-in-force retrieval: retrieving evidence that matches the authority, is valid at the operative date, and supports the answer. We build LawInForce-eCFR from 805 human-validated eCFR/CFR amendment pairs and 3,220 controlled answer-flipping yes/no questions. We also present AuthorityFirst-RAG, a transparent diagnostic retriever that decomposes retrieval into authority identification, temporal scoping, and rule-support ranking. AuthorityFirst-RAG improves Recall@1 from 2.80% for BM25-date-filter to 30.90%, but generation remains difficult even with GoldOracle evidence. These results show a dual bottleneck in versioned legal RAG: retrieving the law in force and applying numeric legal rules.

In recent years, Large Language Models (LLMs) have been widely applied to legal tasks. To enhance their understanding of legal texts and improve reasoning accuracy, a promising approach is to incorporate legal theories. One of the most widely adopted theories is the Four-Element Theory (FET), which defines the crime constitution through four elements: Subject, Object, Subjective Aspect, and Objective Aspect. While recent work has explored prompting LLMs to follow FET, our evaluation demonstrates that LLM-generated four-elements are often incomplete and less representative, limiting their effectiveness in legal reasoning.To address these issues, we present JUREX-4E, an expert-annotated four-element knowledge base covering 155 criminal charges. The annotations follow a progressive hierarchical framework grounded in legal source validity and incorporate diverse interpretive methods to ensure precision and authority. We evaluate JUREX-4E on the Similar Charge Disambiguation task and apply it to Legal Case Retrieval. Experimental results validate the high quality of JUREX-4E and its substantial impact on downstream legal tasks, underscoring its potential for advancing legal AI applications. The dataset and code are available at: https://github.com/THUlawtech/JUREX

Statute retrieval aims to find relevant statutory articles for specific queries. This process is the basis of a wide range of legal applications such as legal advice, automated judicial decisions, legal document drafting, etc. Existing statute retrieval benchmarks emphasize formal and professional queries from sources like bar exams and legal case documents, thereby neglecting non-professional queries from the general public, which often lack precise legal terminology and references. To address this gap, we introduce the STAtute Retrieval Dataset (STARD), a Chinese dataset comprising 1,543 query cases collected from real-world legal consultations and 55,348 candidate statutory articles. Unlike existing statute retrieval datasets, which primarily focus on professional legal queries, STARD captures the complexity and diversity of real queries from the general public. Through a comprehensive evaluation of various retrieval baselines, we reveal that existing retrieval approaches all fall short of these real queries issued by non-professional users. The best method only achieves a Recall@100 of 0.907, suggesting the necessity for further exploration and additional research in this area.

Recognizing facts is the most fundamental step in making judgments, hence detecting events in the legal documents is important to legal case analysis tasks. However, existing Legal Event Detection (LED) datasets only concern incomprehensive event types and have limited annotated data, which restricts the development of LED methods and their downstream applications. To alleviate these issues, we present LEVEN a large-scale Chinese LEgal eVENt detection dataset, with 8,116 legal documents and 150,977 human-annotated event mentions in 108 event types. Not only charge-related events, LEVEN also covers general events, which are critical for legal case understanding but neglected in existing LED datasets. To our knowledge, LEVEN is the largest LED dataset and has dozens of times the data scale of others, which shall significantly promote the training and evaluation of LED methods. The results of extensive experiments indicate that LED is challenging and needs further effort. Moreover, we simply utilize legal events as side information to promote downstream applications. The method achieves improvements of average 2.2 points precision in low-resource judgment prediction, and 1.5 points mean average precision in unsupervised case retrieval, which suggests the fundamentality of LED. The source code and dataset can be obtained from https://github.com/thunlp/LEVEN.