Papers › Identifying Legal Holdings with LLMs: A Systematic Study of Performance, Scale, and...
Identifying Legal Holdings with LLMs: A Systematic Study of Performance, Scale, and Memorization
Chuck Arvin
As large language models (LLMs) continue to advance in capabilities, it is essential to assess how they perform on established benchmarks. In this study, we present a suite of experiments to assess the performance of modern LLMs (ranging from 3B to 90B+ parameters) on CaseHOLD, a legal benchmark dataset for identifying case holdings. Our experiments demonstrate ``scaling effects'' - performance on this task improves with model size, with more capable models like GPT4o and AmazonNovaPro achieving macro F1 scores of 0.744 and 0.720 respectively. These scores are competitive with the best published results on this dataset, and do not require any technically sophisticated model training, fine-tuning or few-shot prompting. To ensure that these strong results are not due to memorization of judicial opinions contained in the training data, we develop and utilize a novel citation anonymization test that preserves semantic meaning while ensuring case names and citations are fictitious. Models maintain strong performance under these conditions (macro F1 of 0.728), suggesting the performance is not due to rote memorization. These findings demonstrate both the promise and current limitations of LLMs for legal tasks with important implications for the development and measurement of automated legal analytics and legal benchmarks.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Tasks
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections