Young Rok Choi

Kyoungyeon Cho, Seungkum Han, Young Rok Choi et al.

The statistical analysis of large scale legal corpus can provide valuable legal insights. For such analysis one needs to (1) select a subset of the corpus using document retrieval tools, (2) structure text using information extraction (IE) systems, and (3) visualize the data for the statistical analysis. Each process demands either specialized tools or programming skills whereas no comprehensive unified "no-code" tools have been available. Here we provide NESTLE, a no-code tool for large-scale statistical analysis of legal corpus. Powered by a Large Language Model (LLM) and the internal custom end-to-end IE system, NESTLE can extract any type of information that has not been predefined in the IE system opening up the possibility of unlimited customizable statistical analysis of the corpus without writing a single line of code. We validate our system on 15 Korean precedent IE tasks and 3 legal text classification tasks from LexGLUE. The comprehensive experiments reveal NESTLE can achieve GPT-4 comparable performance by training the internal IE module with 4 human-labeled, and 192 LLM-labeled examples.

Yeeun Kim, Young Rok Choi, Eunkyung Choi et al.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance in the legal domain, with GPT-4 even passing the Uniform Bar Exam in the U.S. However their efficacy remains limited for non-standardized tasks and tasks in languages other than English. This underscores the need for careful evaluation of LLMs within each legal system before application. Here, we introduce KBL, a benchmark for assessing the Korean legal language understanding of LLMs, consisting of (1) 7 legal knowledge tasks (510 examples), (2) 4 legal reasoning tasks (288 examples), and (3) the Korean bar exam (4 domains, 53 tasks, 2,510 examples). First two datasets were developed in close collaboration with lawyers to evaluate LLMs in practical scenarios in a certified manner. Furthermore, considering legal practitioners' frequent use of extensive legal documents for research, we assess LLMs in both a closed book setting, where they rely solely on internal knowledge, and a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) setting, using a corpus of Korean statutes and precedents. The results indicate substantial room and opportunities for improvement.