LegalOne: A Family of Foundation Models for Reliable Legal Reasoning

While Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive general capabilities, their direct application in the legal domain is often hindered by a lack of precise domain knowledge and complexity of performing rigorous multi-step judicial reasoning. To address this gap, we present LegalOne, a family of foundational models specifically tailored for the Chinese legal domain. LegalOne is developed through a comprehensive three-phase pipeline designed to master legal reasoning. First, during mid-training phase, we propose Plasticity-Adjusted Sampling (PAS) to address the challenge of domain adaptation. This perplexity-based scheduler strikes a balance between the acquisition of new knowledge and the retention of original capabilities, effectively establishing a robust legal foundation. Second, during supervised fine-tuning, we employ Legal Agentic CoT Distillation (LEAD) to distill explicit reasoning from raw legal texts. Unlike naive distillation, LEAD utilizes an agentic workflow to convert complex judicial processes into structured reasoning trajectories, thereby enforcing factual grounding and logical rigor. Finally, we implement a Curriculum Reinforcement Learning (RL) strategy. Through a progressive reinforcement process spanning memorization, understanding, and reasoning, LegalOne evolves from simple pattern matching to autonomous and reliable legal reasoning. Experimental results demonstrate that LegalOne achieves state-of-the-art performance across a wide range of legal tasks, surpassing general-purpose LLMs with vastly larger parameter counts through enhanced knowledge density and efficiency. We publicly release the LegalOne weights and the LegalKit evaluation framework to advance the field of Legal AI, paving the way for deploying trustworthy and interpretable foundation models in high-stakes judicial applications.

PLawBench: A Rubric-Based Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs in Real-World Legal Practice

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to legal domain-specific tasks, evaluating their ability to perform legal work in real-world settings has become essential. However, existing legal benchmarks rely on simplified and highly standardized tasks, failing to capture the ambiguity, complexity, and reasoning demands of real legal practice. Moreover, prior evaluations often adopt coarse, single-dimensional metrics and do not explicitly assess fine-grained legal reasoning. To address these limitations, we introduce PLawBench, a Practical Law Benchmark designed to evaluate LLMs in realistic legal practice scenarios. Grounded in real-world legal workflows, PLawBench models the core processes of legal practitioners through three task categories: public legal consultation, practical case analysis, and legal document generation. These tasks assess a model's ability to identify legal issues and key facts, perform structured legal reasoning, and generate legally coherent documents. PLawBench comprises 850 questions across 13 practical legal scenarios, with each question accompanied by expert-designed evaluation rubrics, resulting in approximately 12,500 rubric items for fine-grained assessment. Using an LLM-based evaluator aligned with human expert judgments, we evaluate 10 state-of-the-art LLMs. Experimental results show that none achieves strong performance on PLawBench, revealing substantial limitations in the fine-grained legal reasoning capabilities of current LLMs and highlighting important directions for future evaluation and development of legal LLMs. Data is available at: https://github.com/skylenage/PLawbench.

Evaluation of Large Language Models in Legal Applications: Challenges, Methods, and Future Directions

Large language models (LLMs) are being increasingly integrated into legal applications, including judicial decision support, legal practice assistance, and public-facing legal services. While LLMs show strong potential in handling legal knowledge and tasks, their deployment in real-world legal settings raises critical concerns beyond surface-level accuracy, involving the soundness of legal reasoning processes and trustworthy issues such as fairness and reliability. Systematic evaluation of LLM performance in legal tasks has therefore become essential for their responsible adoption. This survey identifies key challenges in evaluating LLMs for legal tasks grounded in real-world legal practice. We analyze the major difficulties involved in assessing LLM performance in the legal domain, including outcome correctness, reasoning reliability, and trustworthiness. Building on these challenges, we review and categorize existing evaluation methods and benchmarks according to their task design, datasets, and evaluation metrics. We further discuss the extent to which current approaches address these challenges, highlight their limitations, and outline future research directions toward more realistic, reliable, and legally grounded evaluation frameworks for LLMs in legal domains.

AppellateGen: A Benchmark for Appellate Legal Judgment Generation

Legal judgment generation is a critical task in legal intelligence. However, existing research in legal judgment generation has predominantly focused on first-instance trials, relying on static fact-to-verdict mappings while neglecting the dialectical nature of appellate (second-instance) review. To address this, we introduce AppellateGen, a benchmark for second-instance legal judgment generation comprising 7,351 case pairs. The task requires models to draft legally binding judgments by reasoning over the initial verdict and evidentiary updates, thereby modeling the causal dependency between trial stages. We further propose a judicial Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)-based Legal Multi-Agent System (SLMAS) to simulate judicial workflows, which decomposes the generation process into discrete stages of issue identification, retrieval, and drafting. Experimental results indicate that while SLMAS improves logical consistency, the complexity of appellate reasoning remains a substantial challenge for current LLMs. The dataset and code are publicly available at: https://anonymous.4open.science/r/AppellateGen-5763.

Legal Rule Induction: Towards Generalizable Principle Discovery from Analogous Judicial Precedents

Legal rules encompass not only codified statutes but also implicit adjudicatory principles derived from precedents that contain discretionary norms, social morality, and policy. While computational legal research has advanced in applying established rules to cases, inducing legal rules from judicial decisions remains understudied, constrained by limitations in model inference efficacy and symbolic reasoning capability. The advent of Large Language Models (LLMs) offers unprecedented opportunities for automating the extraction of such latent principles, yet progress is stymied by the absence of formal task definitions, benchmark datasets, and methodologies. To address this gap, we formalize Legal Rule Induction (LRI) as the task of deriving concise, generalizable doctrinal rules from sets of analogous precedents, distilling their shared preconditions, normative behaviors, and legal consequences. We introduce the first LRI benchmark, comprising 5,121 case sets (38,088 Chinese cases in total) for model tuning and 216 expert-annotated gold test sets. Experimental results reveal that: 1) State-of-the-art LLMs struggle with over-generalization and hallucination; 2) Training on our dataset markedly enhances LLMs capabilities in capturing nuanced rule patterns across similar cases.

JuDGE: Benchmarking Judgment Document Generation for Chinese Legal System

This paper introduces JuDGE (Judgment Document Generation Evaluation), a novel benchmark for evaluating the performance of judgment document generation in the Chinese legal system. We define the task as generating a complete legal judgment document from the given factual description of the case. To facilitate this benchmark, we construct a comprehensive dataset consisting of factual descriptions from real legal cases, paired with their corresponding full judgment documents, which serve as the ground truth for evaluating the quality of generated documents. This dataset is further augmented by two external legal corpora that provide additional legal knowledge for the task: one comprising statutes and regulations, and the other consisting of a large collection of past judgment documents. In collaboration with legal professionals, we establish a comprehensive automated evaluation framework to assess the quality of generated judgment documents across various dimensions. We evaluate various baseline approaches, including few-shot in-context learning, fine-tuning, and a multi-source retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) approach, using both general and legal-domain LLMs. The experimental results demonstrate that, while RAG approaches can effectively improve performance in this task, there is still substantial room for further improvement. All the codes and datasets are available at: https://github.com/oneal2000/JuDGE.

LexRAG: Benchmarking Retrieval-Augmented Generation in Multi-Turn Legal Consultation Conversation

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has proven highly effective in improving large language models (LLMs) across various domains. However, there is no benchmark specifically designed to assess the effectiveness of RAG in the legal domain, which restricts progress in this area. To fill this gap, we propose LexRAG, the first benchmark to evaluate RAG systems for multi-turn legal consultations. LexRAG consists of 1,013 multi-turn dialogue samples and 17,228 candidate legal articles. Each sample is annotated by legal experts and consists of five rounds of progressive questioning. LexRAG includes two key tasks: (1) Conversational knowledge retrieval, requiring accurate retrieval of relevant legal articles based on multi-turn context. (2) Response generation, focusing on producing legally sound answers. To ensure reliable reproducibility, we develop LexiT, a legal RAG toolkit that provides a comprehensive implementation of RAG system components tailored for the legal domain. Additionally, we introduce an LLM-as-a-judge evaluation pipeline to enable detailed and effective assessment. Through experimental analysis of various LLMs and retrieval methods, we reveal the key limitations of existing RAG systems in handling legal consultation conversations. LexRAG establishes a new benchmark for the practical application of RAG systems in the legal domain, with its code and data available at https://github.com/CSHaitao/LexRAG.

CaseGen: A Benchmark for Multi-Stage Legal Case Documents Generation

Legal case documents play a critical role in judicial proceedings. As the number of cases continues to rise, the reliance on manual drafting of legal case documents is facing increasing pressure and challenges. The development of large language models (LLMs) offers a promising solution for automating document generation. However, existing benchmarks fail to fully capture the complexities involved in drafting legal case documents in real-world scenarios. To address this gap, we introduce CaseGen, the benchmark for multi-stage legal case documents generation in the Chinese legal domain. CaseGen is based on 500 real case samples annotated by legal experts and covers seven essential case sections. It supports four key tasks: drafting defense statements, writing trial facts, composing legal reasoning, and generating judgment results. To the best of our knowledge, CaseGen is the first benchmark designed to evaluate LLMs in the context of legal case document generation. To ensure an accurate and comprehensive evaluation, we design the LLM-as-a-judge evaluation framework and validate its effectiveness through human annotations. We evaluate several widely used general-domain LLMs and legal-specific LLMs, highlighting their limitations in case document generation and pinpointing areas for potential improvement. This work marks a step toward a more effective framework for automating legal case documents drafting, paving the way for the reliable application of AI in the legal field. The dataset and code are publicly available at https://github.com/CSHaitao/CaseGen.

JUREX-4E: Juridical Expert-Annotated Four-Element Knowledge Base for Legal Reasoning

The Four-Element Theory is a fundamental framework in criminal law, defining the constitution of crime through four dimensions: Subject, Object, Subjective aspect, and Objective aspect. This theory is widely referenced in legal reasoning, and many Large Language Models (LLMs) attempt to incorporate it when handling legal tasks. However, current approaches rely on LLMs' internal knowledge to incorporate this theory, often lacking completeness and representativeness. To address this limitation, we introduce JUREX-4E, an expert-annotated knowledge base covering 155 criminal charges. It is structured through a progressive hierarchical annotation framework that prioritizes legal source validity and employs diverse legal interpretation methods to ensure comprehensiveness and authority. We evaluate JUREX-4E on the Similar Charge Distinction task and apply it to Legal Case Retrieval, demonstrating its effectiveness in improving LLM performance. Experimental results validate the high quality of JUREX-4E and its substantial impact on downstream legal tasks, underscoring its potential for advancing legal AI applications. Code: https://github.com/THUlawtech/JUREX

LegalAgentBench: Evaluating LLM Agents in Legal Domain

With the increasing intelligence and autonomy of LLM agents, their potential applications in the legal domain are becoming increasingly apparent. However, existing general-domain benchmarks cannot fully capture the complexity and subtle nuances of real-world judicial cognition and decision-making. Therefore, we propose LegalAgentBench, a comprehensive benchmark specifically designed to evaluate LLM Agents in the Chinese legal domain. LegalAgentBench includes 17 corpora from real-world legal scenarios and provides 37 tools for interacting with external knowledge. We designed a scalable task construction framework and carefully annotated 300 tasks. These tasks span various types, including multi-hop reasoning and writing, and range across different difficulty levels, effectively reflecting the complexity of real-world legal scenarios. Moreover, beyond evaluating final success, LegalAgentBench incorporates keyword analysis during intermediate processes to calculate progress rates, enabling more fine-grained evaluation. We evaluated eight popular LLMs, highlighting the strengths, limitations, and potential areas for improvement of existing models and methods. LegalAgentBench sets a new benchmark for the practical application of LLMs in the legal domain, with its code and data available at \url{https://github.com/CSHaitao/LegalAgentBench}.