Morgan Gray

Jaromir Savelka, Kevin D. Ashley, Morgan A. Gray et al. · cmu

Interpreting the meaning of legal open-textured terms is a key task of legal professionals. An important source for this interpretation is how the term was applied in previous court cases. In this paper, we evaluate the performance of GPT-4 in generating factually accurate, clear and relevant explanations of terms in legislation. We compare the performance of a baseline setup, where GPT-4 is directly asked to explain a legal term, to an augmented approach, where a legal information retrieval module is used to provide relevant context to the model, in the form of sentences from case law. We found that the direct application of GPT-4 yields explanations that appear to be of very high quality on their surface. However, detailed analysis uncovered limitations in terms of the factual accuracy of the explanations. Further, we found that the augmentation leads to improved quality, and appears to eliminate the issue of hallucination, where models invent incorrect statements. These findings open the door to the building of systems that can autonomously retrieve relevant sentences from case law and condense them into a useful explanation for legal scholars, educators or practicing lawyers alike.

Jaromir Savelka, Kevin D. Ashley, Morgan A Gray et al. · cmu

We evaluated the capability of generative pre-trained transformers~(GPT-4) in analysis of textual data in tasks that require highly specialized domain expertise. Specifically, we focused on the task of analyzing court opinions to interpret legal concepts. We found that GPT-4, prompted with annotation guidelines, performs on par with well-trained law student annotators. We observed that, with a relatively minor decrease in performance, GPT-4 can perform batch predictions leading to significant cost reductions. However, employing chain-of-thought prompting did not lead to noticeably improved performance on this task. Further, we demonstrated how to analyze GPT-4's predictions to identify and mitigate deficiencies in annotation guidelines, and subsequently improve the performance of the model. Finally, we observed that the model is quite brittle, as small formatting related changes in the prompt had a high impact on the predictions. These findings can be leveraged by researchers and practitioners who engage in semantic/pragmatic annotations of texts in the context of the tasks requiring highly specialized domain expertise.

Li Zhang, Morgan Gray, Jaromir Savelka et al. · cmu

Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate potential in complex legal tasks like argument generation, yet their reliability remains a concern. Building upon pilot work assessing LLM generation of 3-ply legal arguments using human evaluation, this paper introduces an automated pipeline to evaluate LLM performance on this task, specifically focusing on faithfulness (absence of hallucination), factor utilization, and appropriate abstention. We define hallucination as the generation of factors not present in the input case materials and abstention as the model's ability to refrain from generating arguments when instructed and no factual basis exists. Our automated method employs an external LLM to extract factors from generated arguments and compares them against the ground-truth factors provided in the input case triples (current case and two precedent cases). We evaluated eight distinct LLMs on three tests of increasing difficulty: 1) generating a standard 3-ply argument, 2) generating an argument with swapped precedent roles, and 3) recognizing the impossibility of argument generation due to lack of shared factors and abstaining. Our findings indicate that while current LLMs achieve high accuracy (over 90%) in avoiding hallucination on viable argument generation tests (Tests 1 & 2), they often fail to utilize the full set of relevant factors present in the cases. Critically, on the abstention test (Test 3), most models failed to follow instructions to stop, instead generating spurious arguments despite the lack of common factors. This automated pipeline provides a scalable method for assessing these crucial LLM behaviors, highlighting the need for improvements in factor utilization and robust abstention capabilities before reliable deployment in legal settings. Link: https://lizhang-aiandlaw.github.io/An-Automated-Pipeline-for-Evaluating-LLM-Generated-3-ply-Case-Based-Legal-Arguments/

Li Zhang, Matthias Grabmair, Morgan Gray et al.

Case-based reasoning is a cornerstone of U.S. legal practice, requiring professionals to argue about a current case by drawing analogies to and distinguishing from past precedents. While Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable capabilities, their proficiency in this complex, nuanced form of reasoning needs further investigation. We propose a formal framework that decomposes the process of identifying significant distinctions between cases into three-stage reasoning tasks. Our framework models cases using factual predicates called factors, organizes them into a legal knowledge hierarchy, and defines verifiable rules for identifying distinctions, analyzing their argumentative support, and evaluating their significance. Through comprehensive evaluation of modern reasoning LLMs, we reveal a paradox: while models achieve high accuracy on surface-level reasoning (Task 1), performance degrades on hierarchical reasoning (Task 2: 64.82%-92.09%) and collapses on integrated analysis (Task 3: 11.46%-33.99%). Most strikingly, we find that models consistently expend more computational resources on incorrect responses than correct ones, suggesting that "thinking longer" does not always mean "thinking smarter." Our work provides a methodology for fine-grained analysis of LLM reasoning capabilities in complex domains and reveals fundamental limitations that must be addressed for robust and trustworthy legal AI.