A Llama walks into the 'Bar': Efficient Supervised Fine-Tuning for Legal Reasoning in the Multi-state Bar Exam
On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning for agents, planning and code
Abstract (arXiv)
Legal reasoning tasks present unique challenges for large language models (LLMs) due to the complexity of domain-specific knowledge and reasoning processes. This paper investigates how effectively smaller language models (Llama 2 7B and Llama 3 8B) can be fine-tuned with a limited dataset of 1,514 Multi-state Bar Examination (MBE) questions to improve legal question answering accuracy. We evaluate these models on the 2022 MBE questions licensed from JD Advising, the same dataset used in the 'GPT-4 passes the Bar exam' study. Our methodology involves collecting approximately 200 questions per legal domain across 7 domains. We distill the dataset using Llama 3 (70B) to transform explanations into a structured IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) format as a guided reasoning process to see if it results in better performance over the non-distilled dataset. We compare the non-fine-tuned models against their supervised fine-tuned (SFT) counterparts, trained for different sample sizes per domain, to study the effect on accuracy and prompt adherence. We also analyse option selection biases and their mitigation following SFT. In addition, we consolidate the performance across multiple variables: prompt type (few-shot vs zero-shot), answer ordering (chosen-option first vs generated-explanation first), response format (Numbered list vs Markdown vs JSON), and different decoding temperatures. Our findings show that domain-specific SFT helps some model configurations achieve close to human baseline performance, despite limited computational resources and a relatively small dataset. We release both the gathered SFT dataset and the family of Supervised Fine-tuned (SFT) adapters optimised for MBE performance. This establishes a practical lower bound on resources needed towards achieving effective legal question answering in smaller LLMs.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning for agents, planning and code, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 29 of its 79 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Apr 2025.
Builds on
29 of 79 references.
References · 29
- 2023Large Language Modelscited by 780
- 2023LeanDojo: Theorem Proving with Retrieval-Augmented Language Modelscited by 427
- 2021MiniF2F: a cross-system benchmark for formal Olympiad-level mathematicscited by 391
- 2020Generative Language Modeling for Automated Theorem Provingcited by 388
- 2022Draft, Sketch, and Prove: Guiding Formal Theorem Provers with Informal Proofscited by 291
- 2022Autoformalization with Large Language Modelscited by 263
- 2023ProofNet: Autoformalizing and Formally Proving Undergraduate-Level Mathematicscited by 192
- 2024PutnamBench: Evaluating Neural Theorem-Provers on the Putnam Mathematical Competitioncited by 165
- 2023Baldur: Whole-Proof Generation and Repair with Large Language Modelscited by 119
- 2023LEGO-Prover: Neural Theorem Proving with Growing Librariescited by 109
- 2022Thor: Wielding Hammers to Integrate Language Models and Automated Theorem Proverscited by 98
- 2023An In-Context Learning Agent for Formal Theorem-Provingcited by 82
17 more
- 2024Formal Mathematical Reasoning: A New Frontier in AIcited by 81
- 2025STP: Self-play LLM Theorem Provers with Iterative Conjecturing and Provingcited by 79
- 2018First Experiments with Neural Translation of Informal to Formal Mathematicscited by 53
- 2024Learning Formal Mathematics From Intrinsic Motivationcited by 45
- 2019Learning to Infer Program Sketchescited by 44
- 2015A formal proof of the Kepler conjecturecited by 42
- 2024LeanAgent: Lifelong Learning for Formal Theorem Provingcited by 35
- 2024Rango: Adaptive Retrieval-Augmented Proving for Automated Software Verificationcited by 27
- 2020First Neural Conjecturing Datasets and Experimentscited by 26
- 2025Autoformalization in the Wild: Assessing LLMs on Real-World Mathematical Definitionscited by 22
- 2022Learning Program Synthesis for Integer Sequences from Scratchcited by 8
- 2023Abstraction boundaries and spec driven development in pure mathematicscited by 5
- 2013Proof-Pattern Recognition and Lemma Discovery in ACL2cited by 3
- 2020Theory Exploration Powered By Deductive Synthesiscited by 3
- 2022Template-Based Conjecturing for Automated Induction in Isabelle/HOLcited by 3
- 2025Learning Conjecturing from Scratchcited by 3
- 2014Hipster: Integrating Theory Exploration in a Proof Assistantcited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 2.
3 papers.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025LEXam: Benchmarking Legal Reasoning on 340 Law Exams
- 2026Parameter Efficient Fine Tuning Llama 3.1 for Answering Arabic Legal Questions: A Case Study on Jordanian Laws
- 2025Elevating Legal LLM Responses: Harnessing Trainable Logical Structures and Semantic Knowledge with Legal Reasoning
- 2025JBE-QA: Japanese Bar Exam QA Dataset for Assessing Legal Domain Knowledge
- 2023LegalBench: A Collaboratively Built Benchmark for Measuring Legal Reasoning in Large Language Models
- 2025KoBLEX: Open Legal Question Answering with Multi-hop Reasoning
- 2026Expert Evaluation of LLM's Open-Ended Legal Reasoning on the Japanese Bar Exam Writing Task
- 2026Knowledge Graph-Assisted LLM Post-Training for Enhanced Legal Reasoning