LEXam: Benchmarking Legal Reasoning on 340 Law Exams
Yu Fan, Jingwei Ni, Jakob Merane, Yang Tian, Yoan Hermstrüwer, Yinya Huang, Mubashara Akhtar, Etienne Salimbeni, Florian Geering, Oliver Dreyer, Daniel Brunner, Markus Leippold
Abstract
Long-form legal reasoning remains a key challenge for large language models (LLMs) in spite of recent advances in test-time scaling. To address this, we introduce LEXam, a novel benchmark derived from 340 law exams spanning 116 law school courses across a range of subjects and degree levels. The dataset comprises 7,537 law exam questions in English and German. It includes both long-form, open-ended questions and multiple-choice questions with varying numbers of options. Besides reference answers, the open questions are also accompanied by explicit guidance outlining the expected legal reasoning approach such as issue spotting, rule recall, or rule application. Our evaluation on both open-ended and multiple-choice questions present significant challenges for current LLMs; in particular, they notably struggle with open questions that require structured, multi-step legal reasoning. Moreover, our results underscore the effectiveness of the dataset in differentiating between models with varying capabilities. Deploying an ensemble LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm with rigorous human expert validation, we demonstrate how model-generated reasoning steps can be evaluated consistently and accurately, closely aligning with human expert assessments. Our evaluation setup provides a scalable method to assess legal reasoning quality beyond simple accuracy metrics. Project page: https://lexam-benchmark.github.io/.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext a30f2f90-dc15-473d-9abd-fb4ba87dcc87Cited by top-tier papers2
- PRBench: Large-Scale Expert Rubrics for Evaluating High-Stakes Professional ReasoningAfra Feyza Akyürek, Advait Gosai, Chen Bo Calvin Zhang, Vipul Gupta et al.ACL 2026 · 18 citations
- Task Cascades for Efficient Unstructured Data ProcessingShreya Shankar, Sepanta Zeighami, Aditya G. ParameswaranSIGMOD 2026 · 7 citations
Builds on16
- Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttentionWoosuk Kwon, Zhuohan Li, Siyuan Zhuang, Ying Sheng et al.SOSP 2023 · 1,016 citations
- LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own GenerationsArjun Panickssery, Samuel R. Bowman, Shi FengNeurIPS 2024 · 865 citations
- miniF2F: a cross-system benchmark for formal Olympiad-level mathematicsKunhao Zheng, Jesse Michael Han, Stanislas PoluICLR 2022 · 342 citations
- LawBench: Benchmarking Legal Knowledge of Large Language ModelsZhiwei Fei, Xiaoyu Shen, Dawei Zhu, Fengzhe Zhou et al.EMNLP 2024 · 59 citations
- Apertus: Democratizing Open and Compliant LLMs for Global Language EnvironmentsAlejandro Hernández-Cano, Alexander Hägele, Allen Hao Huang, Angelika Romanou et al.ACL 2026 · 51 citations
Related papers
- PLAWBENCH: A Rubric-Based Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs in Real-World Legal PracticeYuzhen Shi, Huanghai Liu, Yiran Hu, Gaojie Song et al.ACL 2026 · 7 citations
- Evaluating Legal Reasoning Traces with Legal Issue Tree RubricsJinu Lee, Kyoung-Woon On, Sophia Simeng Han, Arman Cohan et al.ACL 2026 · 2 citations
- Unilaw-R1: A Large Language Model for Legal Reasoning with Reinforcement Learning and Iterative InferenceHua Cai, Shuang Zhao, Liang Zhang, Xuli Shen et al.EMNLP 2025
- MMReason: An Open-Ended Multi-Modal Multi-Step Reasoning Benchmark for MLLMs Toward AGIHuanjin Yao, Jiaxing Huang, Yawen Qiu, Michael K. Chen et al.ICCV 2025 · 4 citations
- Measuring the Unmeasurable: Unveiling Latent Cognitive Capabilities of LLMCui Danxin, Sihang Jiang, Keyi Wang, Zhiyi Duan et al.AAAI 2026
