mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

From Query to Counsel: Structured Reasoning with a Multi-Agent Framework and Dataset for Legal Consultation

arXiv 2604.10470 ↗First posted 12 Apr 2026cs.CL cs.AIcited by 3

On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning for agents, planning and code

also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)

Legal consultation question answering (Legal CQA) presents unique challenges compared to traditional legal QA tasks, including the scarcity of high-quality training data, complex task composition, and strong contextual dependencies. To address these, we construct JurisCQAD, a large-scale dataset of over 43,000 real-world Chinese legal queries annotated with expert-validated positive and negative responses, and design a structured task decomposition that converts each query into a legal element graph integrating entities, events, intents, and legal issues. We further propose JurisMA, a modular multi-agent framework supporting dynamic routing, statutory grounding, and stylistic optimization. Combined with the element graph, the framework enables strong context-aware reasoning, effectively capturing dependencies across legal facts, norms, and procedural logic. Trained on JurisCQAD and evaluated on a refined LawBench, our system significantly outperforms both general-purpose and legal-domain LLMs across multiple lexical and semantic metrics, demonstrating the benefits of interpretable decomposition and modular collaboration in Legal CQA.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning for agents, planning and code, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 15 of its 23 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Apr 2026.

Builds on

15 of 23 references.

Closest ancestors · 1

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025Elevating Legal LLM Responses: Harnessing Trainable Logical Structures and Semantic Knowledge with Legal Reasoning11 Feb

Other references · 14

  1. 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,355
  2. 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,462
  3. 2020BLEURT: Learning Robust Metrics for Text Generationcited by 1,196
  4. 2019PEGASUS: Pre-training with Extracted Gap-sentences for Abstractive Summarizationcited by 1,100
  5. 2020How Does NLP Benefit Legal System: A Summary of Legal Artificial Intelligencecited by 128
  6. 2023Chatlaw: A Multi-Agent Legal Assistant based on a Role-Aligned Mixture-of-Experts Architecturecited by 119
  7. 2019JEC-QA: A Legal-Domain Question Answering Datasetcited by 115
  8. 2024LawGPT: A Chinese Legal Knowledge-Enhanced Large Language Modelcited by 34
  9. 2025A Survey of Large Language Model Empowered Agents for Recommendation and Search: Towards Next-Generation Information Retrievalcited by 31
  10. 2023CaseEncoder: A Knowledge-enhanced Pre-trained Model for Legal Case Encodingcited by 14
  11. 2023Legal Question-Answering in the Indian Context: Efficacy, Challenges, and Potential of Modern AI Modelscited by 10
  12. 2025From Newborn to Impact: Bias-Aware Citation Predictioncited by 9
2 more
  1. 2025TPA: Next Token Probability Attribution for Detecting Hallucinations in RAGcited by 2
  2. 2024Pre-training, Fine-tuning and Re-ranking: A Three-Stage Framework for Legal Question Answeringcited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.

3 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2024LawLuo: A Multi-Agent Collaborative Framework for Multi-Round Chinese Legal Consultation
  2. 2026Decompose-and-Refine: Structured Legal Question Answering with Parametric Retrieval
  3. 2025KoBLEX: Open Legal Question Answering with Multi-hop Reasoning
  4. 2026LawCompass: Navigating from Legal QA to Multi-Agent Deep Research with Grounded Evidence
  5. 2025PAKTON: A Multi-Agent Framework for Question Answering in Long Legal Agreements
  6. 2026CoAL-RAG: A Complexity-Aware Legal Retrieval-Augmented Generation Method
  7. 2026LEGO: Synergizing Expert GraphRAG and Expert Chain-of-Thought for Legal Reasoning
  8. 2025A Llama walks into the 'Bar': Efficient Supervised Fine-Tuning for Legal Reasoning in the Multi-state Bar Exam