Modeling Motivated Reasoning in Law: Evaluating Strategic Role Conditioning in LLM Summarization

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.00529v2
• Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2025 18:58:35 GMT
• Title: Modeling Motivated Reasoning in Law: Evaluating Strategic Role Conditioning in LLM Summarization
• Authors: Eunjung Cho, Alexander Hoyle, Yoan Hermstrüwer,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate user-tailored summaries.<n>This raises important questions about motivated reasoning.<n>We investigate how LLMs respond to prompts conditioned on different legal roles.
• Score: 44.55119228567464
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate user-tailored summaries, adapting outputs to specific stakeholders. In legal contexts, this raises important questions about motivated reasoning -- how models strategically frame information to align with a stakeholder's position within the legal system. Building on theories of legal realism and recent trends in legal practice, we investigate how LLMs respond to prompts conditioned on different legal roles (e.g., judges, prosecutors, attorneys) when summarizing judicial decisions. We introduce an evaluation framework grounded in legal fact and reasoning inclusion, also considering favorability towards stakeholders. Our results show that even when prompts include balancing instructions, models exhibit selective inclusion patterns that reflect role-consistent perspectives. These findings raise broader concerns about how similar alignment may emerge as LLMs begin to infer user roles from prior interactions or context, even without explicit role instructions. Our results underscore the need for role-aware evaluation of LLM summarization behavior in high-stakes legal settings.

Related papers

• LegalOne: A Family of Foundation Models for Reliable Legal Reasoning [54.57434222018289]
  We present LegalOne, a family of foundational models specifically tailored for the Chinese legal domain.<n>LegalOne is developed through a comprehensive three-phase pipeline designed to master legal reasoning.<n>We publicly release the LegalOne weights and the LegalKit evaluation framework to advance the field of Legal AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-31T10:18:32Z)
• PLawBench: A Rubric-Based Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs in Real-World Legal Practice [67.71760070255425]
  We introduce PLawBench, a practical benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) in legal practice scenarios.<n>PLawBench comprises 850 questions across 13 practical legal scenarios, with each question accompanied by expert-designed evaluation rubrics.<n>Using an LLM-based evaluator aligned with human expert judgments, we evaluate 10 state-of-the-art LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-23T11:36:10Z)
• ReGal: A First Look at PPO-based Legal AI for Judgment Prediction and Summarization in India [10.522785783474857]
  We introduce Reinforcement Learning-based Legal Reasoning (ReGal), a framework that integrates Multi-Task Instruction Tuning with Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback.<n>Our approach is evaluated across two critical legal tasks: (i) Court Judgment Prediction and Explanation (CJPE), and (ii) Legal Document Summarization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-19T19:13:41Z)
• Large Language Models' Complicit Responses to Illicit Instructions across Socio-Legal Contexts [54.15982476754607]
  Large language models (LLMs) are now deployed at unprecedented scale, assisting millions of users in daily tasks.<n>This study defines complicit facilitation as the provision of guidance or support that enables illicit user instructions.<n>Using real-world legal cases and established legal frameworks, we construct an evaluation benchmark spanning 269 illicit scenarios and 50 illicit intents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-25T16:01:31Z)
• GLARE: Agentic Reasoning for Legal Judgment Prediction [60.13483016810707]
  Legal judgment prediction (LJP) has become increasingly important in the legal field.<n>Existing large language models (LLMs) have significant problems of insufficient reasoning due to a lack of legal knowledge.<n>We introduce GLARE, an agentic legal reasoning framework that dynamically acquires key legal knowledge by invoking different modules.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-22T13:38:12Z)
• NomicLaw: Emergent Trust and Strategic Argumentation in LLMs During Collaborative Law-Making [6.56837855642886]
  We introduce NomicLaw, a structured multi-agent simulation where LLMs engage in collaborative law-making.<n>We quantitatively measure trust and reciprocity via voting patterns and qualitatively assess how agents use strategic language to justify proposals.<n>Our results highlight the latent social reasoning and persuasive capabilities of ten open-source LLMs and provide insights into the design of future AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-07T12:49:44Z)
• AUTOLAW: Enhancing Legal Compliance in Large Language Models via Case Law Generation and Jury-Inspired Deliberation [5.732271982985626]
  AutoLaw is a novel violation detection framework for domain-specific large language models (LLMs)<n>It combines adversarial data generation with a jury-inspired deliberation process to enhance legal compliance of LLMs.<n>Our results highlight the framework's ability to adaptively probe legal misalignments and deliver reliable, context-aware judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-20T07:09:13Z)
• An Explicit Syllogistic Legal Reasoning Framework for Large Language Models [5.501226256903341]
  Large language models (LLMs) can answer legal questions, but often struggle with explicit syllogistic reasoning.<n>We introduce SyLeR, a novel framework designed to enable LLMs to perform explicit syllogistic legal reasoning.<n>SyLeR employs a tree-structured hierarchical retrieval mechanism to synthesize relevant legal statutes and precedents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-05T03:34:51Z)
• 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)
• Legal Evalutions and Challenges of Large Language Models [42.51294752406578]
  We use the OPENAI o1 model as a case study to evaluate the performance of large models in applying legal provisions. We compare current state-of-the-art LLMs, including open-source, closed-source, and legal-specific models trained specifically for the legal domain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-15T12:23:12Z)
• Evaluating Interventional Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models [58.52919374786108]
  Large language models (LLMs) are used to automate decision-making tasks.<n>In this paper, we evaluate whether LLMs can accurately update their knowledge of a data-generating process in response to an intervention.<n>We create benchmarks that span diverse causal graphs (e.g., confounding, mediation) and variable types.<n>These benchmarks allow us to isolate the ability of LLMs to accurately predict changes resulting from their ability to memorize facts or find other shortcuts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-08T14:15:56Z)
• Exploring the Jungle of Bias: Political Bias Attribution in Language Models via Dependency Analysis [86.49858739347412]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have sparked intense debate regarding the prevalence of bias in these models and its mitigation. We propose a prompt-based method for the extraction of confounding and mediating attributes which contribute to the decision process. We find that the observed disparate treatment can at least in part be attributed to confounding and mitigating attributes and model misalignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T00:02:25Z)
• A Comprehensive Evaluation of Large Language Models on Legal Judgment Prediction [60.70089334782383]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated great potential for domain-specific applications. Recent disputes over GPT-4's law evaluation raise questions concerning their performance in real-world legal tasks. We design practical baseline solutions based on LLMs and test on the task of legal judgment prediction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T07:38:04Z)
• Enhancing Pre-Trained Language Models with Sentence Position Embeddings for Rhetorical Roles Recognition in Legal Opinions [0.16385815610837165]
  The size of legal opinions continues to grow, making it increasingly challenging to develop a model that can accurately predict the rhetorical roles of legal opinions. We propose a novel model architecture for automatically predicting rhetorical roles using pre-trained language models (PLMs) enhanced with knowledge of sentence position information. Based on an annotated corpus from the LegalEval@SemEval2023 competition, we demonstrate that our approach requires fewer parameters, resulting in lower computational costs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-08T20:33:55Z)

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.