CLAIM: An Intent-Driven Multi-Agent Framework for Analyzing Manipulation in Courtroom Dialogues

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.04131v1
• Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2025 16:22:59 GMT
• Title: CLAIM: An Intent-Driven Multi-Agent Framework for Analyzing Manipulation in Courtroom Dialogues
• Authors: Disha Sheshanarayana, Tanishka Magar, Ayushi Mittal, Neelam Chaplot,
• Abstract summary: Despite the growing advancements in NLP, its application in detecting and analyzing manipulation within the legal domain remains largely unexplored.<n>Our work addresses this gap by introducing LegalCon, a dataset of 1,063 annotated courtroom conversations labeled for manipulation detection.<n>We propose CLAIM, a two-stage, Intent-driven Multi-agent framework designed to enhance manipulation analysis by enabling context-aware and informed decision-making.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Courtrooms are places where lives are determined and fates are sealed, yet they are not impervious to manipulation. Strategic use of manipulation in legal jargon can sway the opinions of judges and affect the decisions. Despite the growing advancements in NLP, its application in detecting and analyzing manipulation within the legal domain remains largely unexplored. Our work addresses this gap by introducing LegalCon, a dataset of 1,063 annotated courtroom conversations labeled for manipulation detection, identification of primary manipulators, and classification of manipulative techniques, with a focus on long conversations. Furthermore, we propose CLAIM, a two-stage, Intent-driven Multi-agent framework designed to enhance manipulation analysis by enabling context-aware and informed decision-making. Our results highlight the potential of incorporating agentic frameworks to improve fairness and transparency in judicial processes. We hope that this contributes to the broader application of NLP in legal discourse analysis and the development of robust tools to support fairness in legal decision-making. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/Disha1001/CLAIM.

Related papers

• RLJP: Legal Judgment Prediction via First-Order Logic Rule-enhanced with Large Language Models [58.69183479148083]
  Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) is a pivotal task in legal AI.<n>Existing LJP models integrate judicial precedents and legal knowledge for high performance.<n>But they neglect legal reasoning logic, a critical component of legal judgments requiring rigorous logical analysis.<n>This paper proposes a rule-enhanced legal judgment prediction framework based on first-order logic (FOL) formalism and comparative learning (CL)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-27T14:50:21Z)
• A Law Reasoning Benchmark for LLM with Tree-Organized Structures including Factum Probandum, Evidence and Experiences [76.73731245899454]
  We propose a transparent law reasoning schema enriched with hierarchical factum probandum, evidence, and implicit experience.<n>Inspired by this schema, we introduce the challenging task, which takes a textual case description and outputs a hierarchical structure justifying the final decision.<n>This benchmark paves the way for transparent and accountable AI-assisted law reasoning in the Intelligent Court''
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-02T10:26:54Z)
• AnnoCaseLaw: A Richly-Annotated Dataset For Benchmarking Explainable Legal Judgment Prediction [56.797874973414636]
  AnnoCaseLaw is a first-of-its-kind dataset of 471 meticulously annotated U.S. Appeals Court negligence cases.<n>Our dataset lays the groundwork for more human-aligned, explainable Legal Judgment Prediction models.<n>Results demonstrate that LJP remains a formidable task, with application of legal precedent proving particularly difficult.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-28T19:14:48Z)
• LegalAgentBench: Evaluating LLM Agents in Legal Domain [53.70993264644004]
  LegalAgentBench is a benchmark specifically designed to evaluate LLM Agents in the Chinese legal domain.<n>LegalAgentBench includes 17 corpora from real-world legal scenarios and provides 37 tools for interacting with external knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-23T04:02:46Z)
• Natural Language Processing for the Legal Domain: A Survey of Tasks, Datasets, Models, and Challenges [4.548047308860141]
  This survey follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses framework, reviewing 154 studies, with a final selection of 133 after manual filtering.<n>It explores foundational concepts related to NLP in the legal domain, illustrating the unique aspects and challenges of processing legal texts.<n>We provide an overview of NLP tasks specific to legal text, such as Legal Document Summarisation, legal Named Entity Recognition, Legal Question Answering, Legal Argument Mining, Legal Text Classification, and Legal Judgement Prediction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-25T01:17:02Z)
• Empowering Prior to Court Legal Analysis: A Transparent and Accessible Dataset for Defensive Statement Classification and Interpretation [5.646219481667151]
  This paper introduces a novel dataset tailored for classification of statements made during police interviews, prior to court proceedings. We introduce a fine-tuned DistilBERT model that achieves state-of-the-art performance in distinguishing truthful from deceptive statements. We also present an XAI interface that empowers both legal professionals and non-specialists to interact with and benefit from our system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-17T11:22:27Z)
• DELTA: Pre-train a Discriminative Encoder for Legal Case Retrieval via Structural Word Alignment [55.91429725404988]
  We introduce DELTA, a discriminative model designed for legal case retrieval. We leverage shallow decoders to create information bottlenecks, aiming to enhance the representation ability. Our approach can outperform existing state-of-the-art methods in legal case retrieval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-27T10:40:14Z)
• LLM vs. Lawyers: Identifying a Subset of Summary Judgments in a Large UK Case Law Dataset [0.0]
  This study addresses the gap in the literature working with large legal corpora about how to isolate cases, in our case summary judgments, from a large corpus of UK court decisions. We use the Cambridge Law Corpus of 356,011 UK court decisions and determine that the large language model achieves a weighted F1 score of 0.94 versus 0.78 for keywords. We identify and extract 3,102 summary judgment cases, enabling us to map their distribution across various UK courts over a temporal span.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-04T10:13:30Z)
• Can ChatGPT Perform Reasoning Using the IRAC Method in Analyzing Legal Scenarios Like a Lawyer? [14.103170412148584]
  ChatGPT is applied to perform analysis on the corpus using the IRAC method. Each scenario in the corpus is annotated with a complete IRAC analysis in a semi-structured format. In addition, we conducted the first empirical assessment of ChatGPT for IRAC analysis in order to understand how well it aligns with the analysis of legal professionals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-23T12:51:49Z)
• SAILER: Structure-aware Pre-trained Language Model for Legal Case Retrieval [75.05173891207214]
  Legal case retrieval plays a core role in the intelligent legal system. Most existing language models have difficulty understanding the long-distance dependencies between different structures. We propose a new Structure-Aware pre-traIned language model for LEgal case Retrieval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-22T10:47:01Z)
• JUSTICE: A Benchmark Dataset for Supreme Court's Judgment Prediction [0.0]
  We aim to create a high-quality dataset of SCOTUS court cases so that they may be readily used in natural language processing (NLP) research and other data-driven applications. By using advanced NLP algorithms to analyze previous court cases, the trained models are able to predict and classify a court's judgment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-06T23:19:08Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.