Qingjing Chen

Yuzhen Shi, Huanghai Liu, Yiran Hu et al.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to legal domain-specific tasks, evaluating their ability to perform legal work in real-world settings has become essential. However, existing legal benchmarks rely on simplified and highly standardized tasks, failing to capture the ambiguity, complexity, and reasoning demands of real legal practice. Moreover, prior evaluations often adopt coarse, single-dimensional metrics and do not explicitly assess fine-grained legal reasoning. To address these limitations, we introduce PLawBench, a Practical Law Benchmark designed to evaluate LLMs in realistic legal practice scenarios. Grounded in real-world legal workflows, PLawBench models the core processes of legal practitioners through three task categories: public legal consultation, practical case analysis, and legal document generation. These tasks assess a model's ability to identify legal issues and key facts, perform structured legal reasoning, and generate legally coherent documents. PLawBench comprises 850 questions across 13 practical legal scenarios, with each question accompanied by expert-designed evaluation rubrics, resulting in approximately 12,500 rubric items for fine-grained assessment. Using an LLM-based evaluator aligned with human expert judgments, we evaluate 10 state-of-the-art LLMs. Experimental results show that none achieves strong performance on PLawBench, revealing substantial limitations in the fine-grained legal reasoning capabilities of current LLMs and highlighting important directions for future evaluation and development of legal LLMs. Data is available at: https://github.com/skylenage/PLawbench.

Huanghai Liu, Quzhe Huang, Qingjing Chen et al. · pku

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

Yiran Hu, Huanghai Liu, Qingjing Chen et al.

As the scale and capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) increase, their applications in knowledge-intensive fields such as legal domain have garnered widespread attention. However, it remains doubtful whether these LLMs make judgments based on domain knowledge for reasoning. If LLMs base their judgments solely on specific words or patterns, rather than on the underlying logic of the language, the ''LLM-as-judges'' paradigm poses substantial risks in the real-world applications. To address this question, we propose a method of legal knowledge injection attacks for robustness testing, thereby inferring whether LLMs have learned legal knowledge and reasoning logic. In this paper, we propose J&H: an evaluation framework for detecting the robustness of LLMs under knowledge injection attacks in the legal domain. The aim of the framework is to explore whether LLMs perform deductive reasoning when accomplishing legal tasks. To further this aim, we have attacked each part of the reasoning logic underlying these tasks (major premise, minor premise, and conclusion generation). We have collected mistakes that legal experts might make in judicial decisions in the real world, such as typos, legal synonyms, inaccurate external legal statutes retrieval. However, in real legal practice, legal experts tend to overlook these mistakes and make judgments based on logic. However, when faced with these errors, LLMs are likely to be misled by typographical errors and may not utilize logic in their judgments. We conducted knowledge injection attacks on existing general and domain-specific LLMs. Current LLMs are not robust against the attacks employed in our experiments. In addition we propose and compare several methods to enhance the knowledge robustness of LLMs.

Yiran Hu, Zongyue Xue, Haitao Li et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in high-stakes fields where their decisions impact rights and equity. However, LLMs' judicial fairness and implications for social justice remain underexplored. When LLMs act as judges, the ability to fairly resolve judicial issues is a prerequisite to ensure their trustworthiness. Based on theories of judicial fairness, we construct a comprehensive framework to measure LLM fairness, leading to a selection of 65 labels and 161 corresponding values. Applying this framework to the judicial system, we compile an extensive dataset, JudiFair, comprising 177,100 unique case facts. To achieve robust statistical inference, we develop three evaluation metrics, inconsistency, bias, and imbalanced inaccuracy, and introduce a method to assess the overall fairness of multiple LLMs across various labels. Through experiments with 16 LLMs, we uncover pervasive inconsistency, bias, and imbalanced inaccuracy across models, underscoring severe LLM judicial unfairness. Particularly, LLMs display notably more pronounced biases on demographic labels, with slightly less bias on substance labels compared to procedure ones. Interestingly, increased inconsistency correlates with reduced biases, but more accurate predictions exacerbate biases. While we find that adjusting the temperature parameter can influence LLM fairness, model size, release date, and country of origin do not exhibit significant effects on judicial fairness. Accordingly, we introduce a publicly available toolkit containing all datasets and code, designed to support future research in evaluating and improving LLM fairness.