# OBJECTION! Lawyer Agents Mitigate Guilty Bias in Legal Judgment Prediction

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.02158 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.02158/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 15 of its 31 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 2 Sep 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 15 of 15)

- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17651/) (2023)
- [CAIL2018: A Large-Scale Legal Dataset for Judgment Prediction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1807.02478/) (2018)
- [Lawformer: A Pre-trained Language Model for Chinese Legal Long Documents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2105.03887/) (2021)
- [Pride and Prejudice: LLM Amplifies Self-Bias in Self-Refinement](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.11436/) (2024)
- [Distinguish Confusing Law Articles for Legal Judgment Prediction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.02557/) (2020)
- [Learning to Predict Charges for Criminal Cases with Legal Basis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1707.09168/) (2017)
- [A Survey on Legal Judgment Prediction: Datasets, Metrics, Models and Challenges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.04859/) (2022)
- [LLMRefine: Pinpointing and Refining Large Language Models via Fine-Grained Actionable Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.09336/) (2023)
- [AgentCourt: Simulating Court with Adversarial Evolvable Lawyer Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.08089/) (2024)
- [LLM Self-Correction with DeCRIM: Decompose, Critique, and Refine for Enhanced Following of Instructions with Multiple Constraints](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.06458/) (2024)
- [Explainable Legal Case Matching via Inverse Optimal Transport-based Rationale Extraction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.04182/) (2022)
- [Debate-Feedback: A Multi-Agent Framework for Efficient Legal Judgment Prediction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.05358/) (2025)
- [Beyond Guilt: Legal Judgment Prediction with Trichotomous Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.14588/) (2024)
- [JUREX-4E: Juridical Expert-Annotated Four-Element Knowledge Base for Legal Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.17166/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) models are typically trained on documents that describe facts from a prosecutorial perspective. Existing datasets further exhibit severe label imbalance toward guilty outcomes. Consequently, these models suffer from "Guilty Bias", blindly accepting the prosecution's narrative as objective truth. Previous studies employing three-step reasoning structures or training on synthetically generated innocence data improve overall accuracy, but they still fail to mitigate bias at inference time. In this paper, we introduce OBJECTION, an inference-time pipeline that integrates an Adversarial Lawyer Agent into each 3-step reasoning of offense, unlawfulness, and culpability. Unlike generic critics, our agent actively challenges the model's presumptions of guilt by injecting legal defense arguments at each reasoning stage. To thoroughly evaluate this, we present a new "Natural Innocent" dataset including 3.4k real-world cases, overcoming the limitations of synthetic innocence benchmarks. Test results show that OBJECTION drastically reduces the False Guilty Rate (FGR) from 82.93% (SOTA baseline) to 16.69%, proving its capability to perform substantive legal reasoning. This work denotes a key progress toward aligning Legal AI with the presumption of innocence.