Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 cited by

When Large Language Models Meet Law: Dual-Lens Taxonomy, Technical Advances, and Ethical Governance

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 2507.07748 v1 pith:2IYQELL6 submitted 2025-07-10 cs.CL cs.AI

When Large Language Models Meet Law: Dual-Lens Taxonomy, Technical Advances, and Ethical Governance

classification cs.CL cs.AI
keywords legalreasoningintegrationllmstaxonomytechnicaladvancesargumentation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

This paper establishes the first comprehensive review of Large Language Models (LLMs) applied within the legal domain. It pioneers an innovative dual lens taxonomy that integrates legal reasoning frameworks and professional ontologies to systematically unify historical research and contemporary breakthroughs. Transformer-based LLMs, which exhibit emergent capabilities such as contextual reasoning and generative argumentation, surmount traditional limitations by dynamically capturing legal semantics and unifying evidence reasoning. Significant progress is documented in task generalization, reasoning formalization, workflow integration, and addressing core challenges in text processing, knowledge integration, and evaluation rigor via technical innovations like sparse attention mechanisms and mixture-of-experts architectures. However, widespread adoption of LLM introduces critical challenges: hallucination, explainability deficits, jurisdictional adaptation difficulties, and ethical asymmetry. This review proposes a novel taxonomy that maps legal roles to NLP subtasks and computationally implements the Toulmin argumentation framework, thus systematizing advances in reasoning, retrieval, prediction, and dispute resolution. It identifies key frontiers including low-resource systems, multimodal evidence integration, and dynamic rebuttal handling. Ultimately, this work provides both a technical roadmap for researchers and a conceptual framework for practitioners navigating the algorithmic future, laying a robust foundation for the next era of legal artificial intelligence. We have created a GitHub repository to index the relevant papers: https://github.com/Kilimajaro/LLMs_Meet_Law.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. Fixing FOLIO and MALLS: Verified Annotations and an LLM-assisted Framework to Focus Human Relabeling

    cs.CL 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Audit finds 36-39% incorrect FOL labels in FOLIO and MALLS; corrections raise LLM accuracy 9-22 points and an LLM-guided review framework achieves 90% dataset quality after checking fewer than 24% of examples.

  2. LAMUS: A Large-Scale Corpus for Legal Argument Mining from U.S. Caselaw using LLMs

    cs.CL 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0

    LAMUS adds a roughly 2.9-million-sentence LLM-labeled corpus of U.S. Supreme Court opinions to legal argument mining, with a smaller human-verified Texas benchmark.

  3. LegalCheck: Retrieval- and Context-Augmented Generation for Drafting Municipal Legal Advice Letters

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    LegalCheck automates drafting of municipal legal advice letters via RAG and CAG, producing near-final drafts in minutes with 80-100% coverage of essential legal reasoning in an Amsterdam deployment.

  4. Inteligencia Artificial jur\'idica y el desaf\'io de la veracidad: an\'alisis de alucinaciones, optimizaci\'on de RAG y principios para una integraci\'on responsable

    cs.AI 2025-09 conditional novelty 4.0

    Legal AI hallucination persists in commercial RAG tools (17-34%+ of queries), so the report argues the fix is consultative, source-citing system design plus mandatory human oversight, not better generative models.

  5. LegalCheck: Retrieval- and Context-Augmented Generation for Drafting Municipal Legal Advice Letters

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    LegalCheck applies RAG and CAG to generate draft legal advice letters from laws and precedents, achieving 80-100% coverage of essential reasoning in minutes during a municipal deployment.