Yoan Hermstrüwer

Yu Fan, Jingwei Ni, Jakob Merane et al. · eth-zurich

Long-form legal reasoning remains a key challenge for large language models (LLMs) in spite of recent advances in test-time scaling. To address this, we introduce \textsc{LEXam}, a novel benchmark derived from 340 law exams spanning 116 law school courses across a range of subjects and degree levels. The dataset comprises 4,886 law exam questions in English and German, including 2,841 long-form, open-ended questions and 2,045 multiple-choice questions. Besides reference answers, the open questions are also accompanied by explicit guidance outlining the expected legal reasoning approach such as issue spotting, rule recall, or rule application. Our evaluation on both open-ended and multiple-choice questions present significant challenges for current LLMs; in particular, they notably struggle with open questions that require structured, multi-step legal reasoning. Moreover, our results underscore the effectiveness of the dataset in differentiating between models with varying capabilities. Deploying an ensemble LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm with rigorous human expert validation, we demonstrate how model-generated reasoning steps can be evaluated consistently and accurately, closely aligning with human expert assessments. Our evaluation setup provides a scalable method to assess legal reasoning quality beyond simple accuracy metrics. We have open-sourced our code on https://github.com/LEXam-Benchmark/LEXam and released our data on https://huggingface.co/datasets/LEXam-Benchmark/LEXam. Project page: https://lexam-benchmark.github.io.

Eunjung Cho, Alexander Hoyle, Yoan Hermstrüwer

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate user-tailored summaries, adapting outputs to specific stakeholders. In legal contexts, this raises important questions about motivated reasoning -- how models strategically frame information to align with a stakeholder's position within the legal system. Building on theories of legal realism and recent trends in legal practice, we investigate how LLMs respond to prompts conditioned on different legal roles (e.g., judges, prosecutors, attorneys) when summarizing judicial decisions. We introduce an evaluation framework grounded in legal fact and reasoning inclusion, also considering favorability towards stakeholders. Our results show that even when prompts include balancing instructions, models exhibit selective inclusion patterns that reflect role-consistent perspectives. These findings raise broader concerns about how similar alignment may emerge as LLMs begin to infer user roles from prior interactions or context, even without explicit role instructions. Our results underscore the need for role-aware evaluation of LLM summarization behavior in high-stakes legal settings.