mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Automatic Legal Writing Evaluation of LLMs

arXiv 2504.21202 ↗First posted 29 Apr 2025cs.CL cs.AIcited by 12

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Despite the recent advances in Large Language Models, benchmarks for evaluating legal writing remain scarce due to the inherent complexity of assessing open-ended responses in this domain. One of the key challenges in evaluating language models on domain-specific tasks is finding test datasets that are public, frequently updated, and contain comprehensive evaluation guidelines. The Brazilian Bar Examination meets these requirements. We introduce oab-bench, a benchmark comprising 105 questions across seven areas of law from recent editions of the exam. The benchmark includes comprehensive evaluation guidelines and reference materials used by human examiners to ensure consistent grading. We evaluate the performance of four LLMs on oab-bench, finding that Claude-3.5 Sonnet achieves the best results with an average score of 7.93 out of 10, passing all 21 exams. We also investigated whether LLMs can serve as reliable automated judges for evaluating legal writing. Our experiments show that frontier models like OpenAI's o1 achieve a strong correlation with human scores when evaluating approved exams, suggesting their potential as reliable automated evaluators despite the inherently subjective nature of legal writing assessment. The source code and the benchmark -- containing questions, evaluation guidelines, model-generated responses, and their respective automated evaluations -- are publicly available.

Key facts. Cited by 12 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Apr 2025.

Builds on

15 of 36 references.

References · 15

  1. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
  2. 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,963
  3. 2023GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmarkcited by 2,879
  4. 2023G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignmentcited by 2,276
  5. 2023Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluatorscited by 1,085
  6. 2024Length-Controlled AlpacaEval: A Simple Way to Debias Automatic Evaluatorscited by 897
  7. 2023Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations?cited by 734
  8. 2023UltraFeedback: Boosting Language Models with Scaled AI Feedbackcited by 406
  9. 2023GPTScore: Evaluate as You Desirecited by 361
  10. 2023LegalBench: A Collaboratively Built Benchmark for Measuring Legal Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 336
  11. 2024FrontierMath: A Benchmark for Evaluating Advanced Mathematical Reasoning in AIcited by 243
  12. 2024SaulLM-7B: A pioneering Large Language Model for Lawcited by 142
3 more
  1. 2020LEGAL-BERT: The Muppets straight out of Law Schoolcited by 111
  2. 2024Open-LLM-Leaderboard: From Multi-choice to Open-style Questions for LLMs Evaluation, Benchmark, and Arenacited by 76
  3. 2023BLT: Can Large Language Models Handle Basic Legal Text?cited by 10

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 3; 2026: 9.

12 papers.