# Sycophants in the Courtroom: Are LLMs Fragile to Juridical Authority and Evolving Legal Standards?

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.21409 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.21409/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 30 of its 66 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 10 Aug 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 30)

- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.03300/) (2020)
- [Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03741/) (2017)
- [Gemini 2.5: Pushing the Frontier with Advanced Reasoning, Multimodality, Long Context, and Next Generation Agentic Capabilities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.06261/) (2025)
- [gpt-oss-120b & gpt-oss-20b Model Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.10925/) (2025)
- [What Disease does this Patient Have? A Large-scale Open Domain Question Answering Dataset from Medical Exams](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.13081/) (2020)
- [Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.13548/) (2023)
- [Discovering Language Model Behaviors with Model-Written Evaluations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.09251/) (2022)
- [Large Language Models Are Not Robust Multiple Choice Selectors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.03882/) (2023)
- [LexGLUE: A Benchmark Dataset for Legal Language Understanding in English](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.00976/) (2021)
- [Knowledge Conflicts for LLMs: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.08319/) (2024)
- [CUAD: An Expert-Annotated NLP Dataset for Legal Contract Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.06268/) (2021)
- [Leveraging Large Language Models for Multiple Choice Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.12353/) (2022)
- [When Does Pretraining Help? Assessing Self-Supervised Learning for Law and the CaseHOLD Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.08671/) (2021)
- [Do LLMs exhibit human-like response biases? A case study in survey design](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.04076/) (2023)
- [Large Legal Fictions: Profiling Legal Hallucinations in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.01301/) (2024)
- [ContractNLI: A Dataset for Document-level Natural Language Inference for Contracts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.01799/) (2021)
- [LegalBench-RAG: A Benchmark for Retrieval-Augmented Generation in the Legal Domain](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.10343/) (2024)
- [Sycophancy in Large Language Models: Causes and Mitigations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.15287/) (2024)
- [Artifacts or Abduction: How Do LLMs Answer Multiple-Choice Questions Without the Question?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.12483/) (2024)
- [Can multiple-choice questions really be useful in detecting the abilities of LLMs?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.17752/) (2024)
- [LEXTREME: A Multi-Lingual and Multi-Task Benchmark for the Legal Domain](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.13126/) (2023)
- [Question Answering for Privacy Policies: Combining Computational and Legal Perspectives](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1911.00841/) (2019)
- [MAUD: An Expert-Annotated Legal NLP Dataset for Merger Agreement Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.00876/) (2023)
- [CARES: Comprehensive Evaluation of Safety and Adversarial Robustness in Medical LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.11413/) (2025)
- [Large Language Models Reflect Human Citation Patterns with a Heightened Citation Bias](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.15739/) (2024)
- [To Generate or to Retrieve? On the Effectiveness of Artificial Contexts for Medical Open-Domain Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.01924/) (2024)
- [LegalReasoner: Step-wised Verification-Correction for Legal Judgment Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.07443/) (2025)
- [PORTS: Preference-Optimized Retrievers for Tool Selection with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.05441/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

In medicine, claims remain valid when supported by empirical evidence grounded in stable biological reality. In law, by contrast, truth is contingent, defined by jurisdiction, temporal validity, and the hierarchy of authoritative sources. The recent success of large language models (LLMs) on medical licensing examinations has encouraged an expectation of comparable legal competence. This analogy, however, obscures a critical distinction between domains. Unlike in medicine, legal performance often depends less on inference than on determining when external authority is applicable, valid, and non-contradictory. We introduce a comparative diagnostic framework evaluating legal reasoning against medical baselines along four axes (knowledge recall, grounding, confidence, and robustness), uncovering a sharp domain asymmetry when applied to a new benchmark that encodes temporal validity and normative relationships. While medical LLMs reliably benefit from verified sources, legal LLMs struggle to assess when retrieved citations are useful or misleading, exhibiting overconfidence in perturbed contexts and sensitivity to superficial formatting cues. Increased model scale amplifies this tendency, revealing that stronger instruction following can coincide with weaker resistance to authoritative perturbations. These findings show that LLMs treat law as unstructured text rather than binding precedent, while revealing a tendency to over-trust authoritative but false information when external references conflict with a model's internal knowledge.