Knowledge Graph Analysis of Legal Understanding and Violations in LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.08593v1
• Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2025 17:26:09 GMT
• Title: Knowledge Graph Analysis of Legal Understanding and Violations in LLMs
• Authors: Abha Jha, Abel Salinas, Fred Morstatter,
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 12.520937828343586
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The rise of Large Language Models (LLMs) offers transformative potential for interpreting complex legal frameworks, such as Title 18 Section 175 of the US Code, which governs biological weapons. These systems hold promise for advancing legal analysis and compliance monitoring in sensitive domains. However, this capability comes with a troubling contradiction: while LLMs can analyze and interpret laws, they also demonstrate alarming vulnerabilities in generating unsafe outputs, such as actionable steps for bioweapon creation, despite their safeguards. To address this challenge, we propose a methodology that integrates knowledge graph construction with Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) to systematically evaluate LLMs' understanding of this law, their capacity to assess legal intent (mens rea), and their potential for unsafe applications. Through structured experiments, we assess their accuracy in identifying legal violations, generating prohibited instructions, and detecting unlawful intent in bioweapons-related scenarios. Our findings reveal significant limitations in LLMs' reasoning and safety mechanisms, but they also point the way forward. By combining enhanced safety protocols with more robust legal reasoning frameworks, this research lays the groundwork for developing LLMs that can ethically and securely assist in sensitive legal domains - ensuring they act as protectors of the law rather than inadvertent enablers of its violation.

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)
• Reasoning over Precedents Alongside Statutes: Case-Augmented Deliberative Alignment for LLM Safety [59.01189713115365]
  We evaluate the impact of explicitly specifying extensive safety codes versus demonstrating them through illustrative cases.<n>We find that referencing explicit codes inconsistently improves harmlessness and systematically degrades helpfulness.<n>We propose CADA, a case-augmented deliberative alignment method for LLMs utilizing reinforcement learning on self-generated safety reasoning chains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-12T21:08:46Z)
• LRAS: Advanced Legal Reasoning with Agentic Search [48.281150948187786]
  Legal Reasoning with Agentic Search (LRAS) is a framework designed to transition legal LLMs from static and parametric "closed-loop thinking" to dynamic and interactive "Active Inquiry"<n>By integrating Introspective Learning and Difficulty-aware Reinforcement Learning, LRAS enables LRMs to identify knowledge boundaries and handle legal reasoning.<n> Empirical results demonstrate that LRAS outperforms state-of-the-art baselines by 8.2-32%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-12T08:07:35Z)
• 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)
• Safety Compliance: Rethinking LLM Safety Reasoning through the Lens of Compliance [49.50518009960314]
  Existing safety methods rely on ad-hoc taxonomy and lack a rigorous, systematic protection.<n>We develop a new benchmark for safety compliance by generating realistic LLM safety scenarios seeded with legal statutes.<n>Our experiments demonstrate that the Compliance Reasoner achieves superior performance on the new benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-26T12:11:29Z)
• The Law-Following AI Framework: Legal Foundations and Technical Constraints. Legal Analogues for AI Actorship and technical feasibility of Law Alignment [0.0]
  "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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-08T16:00:55Z)
• 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)
• From Rogue to Safe AI: The Role of Explicit Refusals in Aligning LLMs with International Humanitarian Law [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used across sectors, yet their alignment with International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is not well understood.<n>This study evaluates eight leading LLMs on their ability to refuse prompts that explicitly violate these legal frameworks.<n>Findings contribute to the development of safer, more transparent AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T16:53:29Z)
• 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)
• J&H: Evaluating the Robustness of Large Language Models Under Knowledge-Injection Attacks in Legal Domain [12.550611136062722]
  We propose a method of legal knowledge injection attacks for robustness testing.<n>The aim of the framework is to explore whether LLMs perform deductive reasoning when accomplishing legal tasks.<n>We have collected mistakes that legal experts might make in judicial decisions in the real world.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-24T05:42:05Z)
• Risks of AI Scientists: Prioritizing Safeguarding Over Autonomy [65.77763092833348]
  This perspective examines vulnerabilities in AI scientists, shedding light on potential risks associated with their misuse.<n>We take into account user intent, the specific scientific domain, and their potential impact on the external environment.<n>We propose a triadic framework involving human regulation, agent alignment, and an understanding of environmental feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-06T18:54:07Z)
• Large Language Models as Tax Attorneys: A Case Study in Legal Capabilities Emergence [5.07013500385659]
  This paper explores Large Language Models' (LLMs) capabilities in applying tax law. Our experiments demonstrate emerging legal understanding capabilities, with improved performance in each subsequent OpenAI model release. Findings indicate that LLMs, particularly when combined with prompting enhancements and the correct legal texts, can perform at high levels of accuracy but not yet at expert tax lawyer levels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-12T12:40:48Z)

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.