Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Legal Prompt Engineering for Multilingual Legal Judgement Prediction

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2212.02199 v1 pith:TDNF7OET submitted 2022-12-05 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords legalllmscomparedcourtengineeringjudgementlanguageprediction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Legal Prompt Engineering (LPE) or Legal Prompting is a process to guide and assist a large language model (LLM) with performing a natural legal language processing (NLLP) skill. Our goal is to use LPE with LLMs over long legal documents for the Legal Judgement Prediction (LJP) task. We investigate the performance of zero-shot LPE for given facts in case-texts from the European Court of Human Rights (in English) and the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland (in German, French and Italian). Our results show that zero-shot LPE is better compared to the baselines, but it still falls short compared to current state of the art supervised approaches. Nevertheless, the results are important, since there was 1) no explicit domain-specific data used - so we show that the transfer to the legal domain is possible for general-purpose LLMs, and 2) the LLMs where directly applied without any further training or fine-tuning - which in turn saves immensely in terms of additional computational costs.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. LLMs on Trial: Evaluating Judicial Fairness for Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new 177,100-case benchmark shows that 16 LLMs systematically vary criminal sentences based on extra-legal demographic and procedural details, revealing pervasive judicial unfairness.

  2. LLMs for LLMs: A Structured Prompting Methodology for Long Legal Documents

    cs.AI 2025-09 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    On CUAD legal contracts, a prompt-engineered QWEN-2 pipeline with chunking and two answer-selection heuristics reportedly outperforms the fine-tuned DeBERTa-large baseline by about 9%, reaching claimed state-of-the-ar...

  3. An Integrated Framework of Prompt Engineering and Multidimensional Knowledge Graphs for Legal Dispute Analysis

    cs.AI 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A prompt-plus-knowledge-graph framework for legal dispute analysis reports improved LLM sensitivity and citation accuracy on a 100-pair test set, but with limited statistical support.

Pith tools