Search

The advent of large language models (LLMs) and their adoption by the legal community has given rise to the question: what types of legal reasoning can LLMs perform? To enable greater study of this question, we present LegalBench: a collaboratively constructed legal reasoning benchmark consisting of 162 tasks covering six different types of legal reasoning. LegalBench was built through an interdisciplinary process, in which we collected tasks designed and hand-crafted by legal professionals. Because these subject matter experts took a leading role in construction, tasks either measure legal reasoning capabilities that are practically useful, or measure reasoning skills that lawyers find interesting. To enable cross-disciplinary conversations about LLMs in the law, we additionally show how popular legal frameworks for describing legal reasoning -- which distinguish between its many forms -- correspond to LegalBench tasks, thus giving lawyers and LLM developers a common vocabulary. This paper describes LegalBench, presents an empirical evaluation of 20 open-source and commercial LLMs, and illustrates the types of research explorations LegalBench enables., Comment: 143 pages, 79 tables, 4 figures

Millions of Americans must attend mandatory court dates every year. To boost appearance rates, jurisdictions nationwide are increasingly turning to automated reminders, but previous research offers mixed evidence on their effectiveness. In partnership with the Santa Clara County Public Defender Office, we randomly assigned 5,709 public defender clients to either receive automated text message reminders (treatment) or not receive reminders (control). We found that reminders reduced warrants issued for missed court dates by approximately 20%, with 12.1% of clients in the control condition issued a warrant compared to 9.7% of clients in the treatment condition. We further found that incarceration from missed court dates dropped by a similar amount, from 6.2% in the control condition to 4.8% in the treatment condition. Our results provide evidence that automated reminders can help people avoid the negative consequences of missing court.

Predictive algorithms are now used to help distribute a large share of our society's resources and sanctions, such as healthcare, loans, criminal detentions, and tax audits. Under the right circumstances, these algorithms can improve the efficiency and equity of decision-making. At the same time, there is a danger that the algorithms themselves could entrench and exacerbate disparities, particularly along racial, ethnic, and gender lines. To help ensure their fairness, many researchers suggest that algorithms be subject to at least one of three constraints: (1) no use of legally protected features, such as race, ethnicity, and gender; (2) equal rates of "positive" decisions across groups; and (3) equal error rates across groups. Here we show that these constraints, while intuitively appealing, often worsen outcomes for individuals in marginalized groups, and can even leave all groups worse off. The inherent trade-off we identify between formal fairness constraints and welfare improvements -- particularly for the marginalized -- highlights the need for a more robust discussion on what it means for an algorithm to be "fair". We illustrate these ideas with examples from healthcare and the criminal-legal system, and make several proposals to help practitioners design more equitable algorithms.

In an attempt to make algorithms fair, the machine learning literature has largely focused on equalizing decisions, outcomes, or error rates across race or gender groups. To illustrate, consider a hypothetical government rideshare program that provides transportation assistance to low-income people with upcoming court dates. Following this literature, one might allocate rides to those with the highest estimated treatment effect per dollar, while constraining spending to be equal across race groups. That approach, however, ignores the downstream consequences of such constraints, and, as a result, can induce unexpected harms. For instance, if one demographic group lives farther from court, enforcing equal spending would necessarily mean fewer total rides provided, and potentially more people penalized for missing court. Here we present an alternative framework for designing equitable algorithms that foregrounds the consequences of decisions. In our approach, one first elicits stakeholder preferences over the space of possible decisions and the resulting outcomes--such as preferences for balancing spending parity against court appearance rates. We then optimize over the space of decision policies, making trade-offs in a way that maximizes the elicited utility. To do so, we develop an algorithm for efficiently learning these optimal policies from data for a large family of expressive utility functions. In particular, we use a contextual bandit algorithm to explore the space of policies while solving a convex optimization problem at each step to estimate the best policy based on the available information. This consequentialist paradigm facilitates a more holistic approach to equitable decision-making.