Automating Legal Interpretation with LLMs: Retrieval, Generation, and Evaluation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Interpreting the law is always essential for the law to adapt to the ever-changing society. It is a critical and challenging task even for legal practitioners, as it requires meticulous and professional annotations and summarizations by legal experts, which are admittedly time-consuming and expensive to collect at scale. To alleviate the burden on legal experts, we propose a method for automated legal interpretation. Specifically, by emulating doctrinal legal research, we introduce a novel framework, ATRIE, to address Legal Concept Interpretation, a typical task in legal interpretation. ATRIE utilizes large language models (LLMs) to AuTomatically Retrieve concept-related information, Interpret legal concepts, and Evaluate generated interpretations, eliminating dependence on legal experts. ATRIE comprises a legal concept interpreter and a legal concept interpretation evaluator. The interpreter uses LLMs to retrieve relevant information from previous cases and interpret legal concepts. The evaluator uses performance changes on Legal Concept Entailment, a downstream task we propose, as a proxy of interpretation quality. Automated and multifaceted human evaluations indicate that the quality of our interpretations is comparable to those written by legal experts, with superior comprehensiveness and readability. Although there remains a slight gap in accuracy, it can already assist legal practitioners in improving the efficiency of legal interpretation.
Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 39 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Jan 2025.
Builds on
12 of 39 references.
References · 12
- 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,132
- 2020Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Taskscited by 9,160
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,393
- 2022Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasonerscited by 4,323
- 2020REALM: Retrieval-Augmented Language Model Pre-Trainingcited by 2,126
- 2023JudgeLM: Fine-tuned Large Language Models are Scalable Judgescited by 351
- 2023Chatlaw: A Multi-Agent Legal Assistant based on a Role-Aligned Mixture-of-Experts Architecturecited by 119
- 2023DISC-LawLLM: Fine-tuning Large Language Models for Intelligent Legal Servicescited by 117
- 2023Explaining Legal Concepts with Augmented Large Language Models (GPT-4)cited by 39
- 2024Leveraging Large Language Models for Learning Complex Legal Concepts through Storytellingcited by 23
- 2021Discovering Explanatory Sentences in Legal Case Decisions Using Pre-trained Language Modelscited by 9
- 2023Generative Interpretationcited by 8
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 2; 2026: 3.
5 papers.
- 2025LEXam: Benchmarking Legal Reasoning on 340 Law Examscited by 52
- 2025Prompting from the bench: Large-scale pretraining is not sufficient to prepare LLMs for ordinary meaning analysiscited by 4
- 2026VERDICT: Verifiable Evolving Reasoning with Directive-Informed Collegial Teams for Legal Judgment Predictioncited by 2
- 2026SCORE: Specificity, Context Utilization, Robustness, and Relevance for Reference-Free LLM Evaluationcited by 0
- 2026Retrieval-Based Multi-Label Legal Annotation: Extensible, Data-Efficient and Hallucination-Freecited by 0
- 2026Retrieval-Based Multi-Label Legal Annotation: Extensible, Data-Efficient and Hallucination-Free16 May 2026
- 2026VERDICT: Verifiable Evolving Reasoning with Directive-Informed Collegial Teams for Legal Judgment Prediction13 Mar 2026
- 2026SCORE: Specificity, Context Utilization, Robustness, and Relevance for Reference-Free LLM Evaluation10 Feb 2026
- 2025Prompting from the bench: Large-scale pretraining is not sufficient to prepare LLMs for ordinary meaning analysis29 Oct 2025
- 2025LEXam: Benchmarking Legal Reasoning on 340 Law Exams19 May 2025