Large language models (LLMs) are playing an increasingly pivotal role in LegalAI. However, existing benchmarks are primarily tailored for legal professionals, emphasizing deep reasoning and explainability. While public-facing legal applications demand outputs that are direct, actionable, and accessible, a need largely overlooked by current evaluation frameworks. To bridge this gap, we propose a public-oriented LegalAI benchmark grounded in legal functionalism and genre analysis. Specifically, we categorize public legal demands into two core tasks: Instant Question Answering and Legal Text Generation. We further introduce three public-oriented evaluation dimensions: legal normativity, content relevance, and format usability, which collectively assess the practical validity and user readiness of model outputs. To reflect real-world lay user usage, we evaluate 17 LLMs on Pub-LawBench using only simple prompts and Chain-of-Thought under a vanilla inference setting, excluding complex techniques like RAG or agent-based methods inaccessible to non-experts. Experiments reveal limitations of current LLMs in delivering effective public-oriented legal assistance, highlighting the need for more user-centric model development and benchmarking. Our code and datasets are available for review at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/P-LawBench-E565/.

A defence opinion is an essential step in criminal proceedings, yet it has not been systematically formulated or evaluated as a specific LegalAI task. Grounded in legal principles and practice, we formulate this task as generating a structured defence opinion conditioned jointly on an indictment and the defendant’s stated opinion, which often present conflicting claims. We formalize this setting as a dual-perspective generation problem and introduce DefGen-Bench, a benchmark comprising several Chinese criminal cases with expert-reviewed reference defence opinions. We evaluate eight large language models (LLMs) on this task and observe that existing models tend to mirror the defendant’s opinion, thereby overlooking more appropriate defence strategies. To address this challenge, we propose Knowledge-Enhanced Highlighted Indictment (KHI), a legal knowledge–guided input enhancement method applicable to both open- and closed-source LLMs. Experiments demonstrate consistent improvements across all evaluated LLMs, validating the effectiveness of the proposed approach.