Pith. sign in

Towards Supporting Legal Argumentation with NLP: Is More Data Really All You Need?

1 Pith paper cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.

1 Pith paper citing it
abstract

Modeling legal reasoning and argumentation justifying decisions in cases has always been central to AI & Law, yet contemporary developments in legal NLP have increasingly focused on statistically classifying legal conclusions from text. While conceptually simpler, these approaches often fall short in providing usable justifications connecting to appropriate legal concepts. This paper reviews both traditional symbolic works in AI & Law and recent advances in legal NLP, and distills possibilities of integrating expert-informed knowledge to strike a balance between scalability and explanation in symbolic vs. data-driven approaches. We identify open challenges and discuss the potential of modern NLP models and methods that integrate

citation-role summary

background 1

citation-polarity summary

fields

cs.CL 1

years

2025 1

verdicts

CONDITIONAL 1

roles

background 1

polarities

unclear 1

representative citing papers

LLMs for Legal Subsumption in German Employment Contracts

cs.CL · 2025-07-02 · conditional · novelty 5.0

LLMs reach 80% weighted F1 on German employment contract clause review when given lawyer-distilled examination guidelines, but lag human lawyers when reading full legal sources.

citing papers explorer

Showing 1 of 1 citing paper.

  • LLMs for Legal Subsumption in German Employment Contracts cs.CL · 2025-07-02 · conditional · none · ref 27 · internal anchor

    LLMs reach 80% weighted F1 on German employment contract clause review when given lawyer-distilled examination guidelines, but lag human lawyers when reading full legal sources.