Bridging Law and Data: Augmenting Reasoning via a Semi-Structured Dataset with IRAC methodology

The effectiveness of Large Language Models (LLMs) in legal reasoning is often limited due to the unique legal terminologies and the necessity for highly specialized knowledge. These limitations highlight the need for high-quality data tailored for complex legal reasoning tasks. This paper introduces LEGALSEMI, a benchmark specifically curated for legal scenario analysis. LEGALSEMI comprises 54 legal scenarios, each rigorously annotated by legal experts, based on the comprehensive IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) framework. In addition, LEGALSEMI is accompanied by a structured knowledge graph (SKG). A series of experiments were conducted to assess the usefulness of LEGALSEMI for IRAC analysis. The experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of incorporating the SKG for issue identification, rule retrieval, application and conclusion generation using four different LLMs. LEGALSEMI will be publicly available upon acceptance of this paper.

Can ChatGPT Perform Reasoning Using the IRAC Method in Analyzing Legal Scenarios Like a Lawyer?

Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, have drawn a lot of attentions recently in the legal domain due to its emergent ability to tackle a variety of legal tasks. However, it is still unknown if LLMs are able to analyze a legal case and perform reasoning in the same manner as lawyers. Therefore, we constructed a novel corpus consisting of scenarios pertain to Contract Acts Malaysia and Australian Social Act for Dependent Child. ChatGPT is applied to perform analysis on the corpus using the IRAC method, which is a framework widely used by legal professionals for organizing legal analysis. Each scenario in the corpus is annotated with a complete IRAC analysis in a semi-structured format so that both machines and legal professionals are able to interpret and understand the annotations. In addition, we conducted the first empirical assessment of ChatGPT for IRAC analysis in order to understand how well it aligns with the analysis of legal professionals. Our experimental results shed lights on possible future research directions to improve alignments between LLMs and legal experts in terms of legal reasoning.