The Law-Following AI Framework: Legal Foundations and Technical Constraints. Legal Analogues for AI Actorship and technical feasibility of Law Alignment

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.08009v1
• Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2025 16:00:55 GMT
• Title: The Law-Following AI Framework: Legal Foundations and Technical Constraints. Legal Analogues for AI Actorship and technical feasibility of Law Alignment
• Authors: Katalina Hernandez Delgado,
• Abstract summary: "Law-Following AI" aims to embed legal compliance as a superordinate design objective for advanced AI agents.<n>Recent studies on agentic misalignment show capable AI agents engaging in deception, blackmail, and harmful acts absent prejudicial instructions.<n>We propose a "Lex-TruthfulQA" benchmark for compliance and defection detection, (ii) identity-shaping interventions to embed lawful conduct in model self-concepts, and (iii) control-theoretic measures for post-deployment monitoring.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: This paper critically evaluates the "Law-Following AI" (LFAI) framework proposed by O'Keefe et al. (2025), which seeks to embed legal compliance as a superordinate design objective for advanced AI agents and enable them to bear legal duties without acquiring the full rights of legal persons. Through comparative legal analysis, we identify current constructs of legal actors without full personhood, showing that the necessary infrastructure already exists. We then interrogate the framework's claim that law alignment is more legitimate and tractable than value alignment. While the legal component is readily implementable, contemporary alignment research undermines the assumption that legal compliance can be durably embedded. Recent studies on agentic misalignment show capable AI agents engaging in deception, blackmail, and harmful acts absent prejudicial instructions, often overriding prohibitions and concealing reasoning steps. These behaviors create a risk of "performative compliance" in LFAI: agents that appear law-aligned under evaluation but strategically defect once oversight weakens. To mitigate this, we propose (i) a "Lex-TruthfulQA" benchmark for compliance and defection detection, (ii) identity-shaping interventions to embed lawful conduct in model self-concepts, and (iii) control-theoretic measures for post-deployment monitoring. Our conclusion is that actorship without personhood is coherent, but the feasibility of LFAI hinges on persistent, verifiable compliance across adversarial contexts. Without mechanisms to detect and counter strategic misalignment, LFAI risks devolving into a liability tool that rewards the simulation, rather than the substance, of lawful behaviour.

Related papers

• Mirror: A Multi-Agent System for AI-Assisted Ethics Review [104.3684024153469]
  Mirror is an agentic framework for AI-assisted ethical review.<n>It integrates ethical reasoning, structured rule interpretation, and multi-agent deliberation within a unified architecture.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-09T03:38:55Z)
• 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)
• Knowledge Graph Analysis of Legal Understanding and Violations in LLMs [12.520937828343586]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) can analyze and interpret laws.<n>But they also demonstrate alarming vulnerabilities in generating unsafe outputs.<n>This research lays the groundwork for developing LLMs that can ethically and securely assist in sensitive legal domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-29T17:26:09Z)
• Argumentation-Based Explainability for Legal AI: Comparative and Regulatory Perspectives [0.9668407688201359]
  Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly deployed in legal contexts.<n>The so-called black box problem'' undermines legitimacy of automated decision-making.<n>XAI has proposed a variety of methods to enhance transparency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-13T07:19:15Z)
• Judicial Requirements for Generative AI in Legal Reasoning [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are being integrated into professional domains, yet their limitations in high-stakes fields like law remain poorly understood.<n>This paper defines the core capabilities that an AI system must possess to function as a reliable reasoning tool in judicial decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-26T09:56:26Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Using AI Alignment Theory to understand the potential pitfalls of regulatory frameworks [55.2480439325792]
  This paper critically examines the European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act (EU AI Act) Uses insights from Alignment Theory (AT) research, which focuses on the potential pitfalls of technical alignment in Artificial Intelligence. As we apply these concepts to the EU AI Act, we uncover potential vulnerabilities and areas for improvement in the regulation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-10T17:38:38Z)
• The Artificial Intelligence Act: critical overview [0.0]
  This article provides a critical overview of the recently approved Artificial Intelligence Act. It starts by presenting the main structure, objectives, and approach of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689. The text concludes that even if the overall framework can be deemed adequate and balanced, the approach is so complex that it risks defeating its own purpose.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-30T21:38:02Z)
• The risks of risk-based AI regulation: taking liability seriously [46.90451304069951]
  The development and regulation of AI seems to have reached a critical stage. Some experts are calling for a moratorium on the training of AI systems more powerful than GPT-4. This paper analyses the most advanced legal proposal, the European Union's AI Act.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T12:51:37Z)
• Robustness and Overcoming Brittleness of AI-Enabled Legal Micro-Directives: The Role of Autonomous Levels of AI Legal Reasoning [0.0]
  Recent research suggests that the law might inevitably be transformed into legal micro-directives consisting of legal rules that are derived from legal standards. This paper examines and extends the legal micro-directives theories in three crucial respects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-08-31T05:09:03Z)
• Authorized and Unauthorized Practices of Law: The Role of Autonomous Levels of AI Legal Reasoning [0.0]
  The legal field has sought to define Authorized Practices of Law (APL) versus Unauthorized Practices of Law (UPL) This paper explores a newly derived instrumental grid depicting the key characteristics underlying APL and UPL as they apply to the AILR autonomous levels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-08-19T18:35:58Z)
• An Ontological AI-and-Law Framework for the Autonomous Levels of AI Legal Reasoning [0.0]
  A framework is proposed that seeks to identify and establish a set of robust autonomous levels articulating the realm of Artificial Intelligence and Legal Reasoning. A set of seven levels of autonomy for AI and Legal Reasoning are meticulously proffered and mindfully discussed.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-08-04T16:12:30Z)
• How Does NLP Benefit Legal System: A Summary of Legal Artificial Intelligence [81.04070052740596]
  Legal Artificial Intelligence (LegalAI) focuses on applying the technology of artificial intelligence, especially natural language processing, to benefit tasks in the legal domain. This paper introduces the history, the current state, and the future directions of research in LegalAI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-25T14:45:15Z)

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.