Legal consultation is essential for safeguarding individual rights and ensuring access to justice, yet remains costly and inaccessible to many individuals due to the shortage of professionals. While recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) offer a promising path toward scalable, low-cost legal assistance, current systems fall short in handling the interactive and knowledge-intensive nature of real-world consultations. To address these challenges, we introduce LeCoDe, a multi-turn benchmark dataset constructed from publicly available real-world legal consultation content and carefully processed into a de-identified, structured research resource for evaluating and advancing research on LLMs in legal consultation settings. LeCoDe contains 3,696 multi-turn consultation cases with 110,008 dialogue turns. The dataset is further enriched through expert annotation, including key facts, fact importance, and advice summaries. Furthermore, we propose a comprehensive evaluation framework that assesses LLMs’ consultation capabilities in terms of (1) clarification capability and (2) professional advice quality. This unified framework incorporates 12 metrics across two dimensions. Through extensive experiments on various general and domain-specific LLMs, our results reveal significant challenges in this task, with even state-of-the-art models like GPT-4 achieving only 35.9% recall for clarification and 59.1% overall score for advice quality, highlighting the complexity of professional consultation scenarios. Based on these findings, we further explore several strategies to enhance LLMs’ legal consultation abilities. Our benchmark contributes to advancing research in legal domain dialogue systems, particularly in simulating more real-world user-expert interactions. The resource is available at https://github.com/PiLab-ZJU/LeCoDe.

Large language models (LLMs)-based personal assistants may struggle to effectively utilize long-term conversational histories.Despite advances in long-term memory systems and dense retrieval methods, these assistants still fail to capture entity relationships and handle multiple intents effectively. To tackle above limitations, we propose **Associa**, a graph-structured memory framework that mimics human cognitive processes. Associa comprises an event-centric memory graph and two collaborative components: **Intuitive Association**, which extracts evidence-rich subgraphs through Prize-Collecting Steiner Tree optimization, and **Deliberating Recall**, which iteratively refines queries for comprehensive evidence collection. Experiments show that Associa significantly outperforms existing methods in retrieval and QA (question and answering) tasks across long-term dialogue benchmarks, advancing the development of more human-like AI memory systems.

Large Language Models (LLMs) could struggle to fully understand legal theories and perform complex legal reasoning tasks. In this study, we introduce a challenging task (confusing charge prediction) to better evaluate LLMs’ understanding of legal theories and reasoning capabilities. We also propose a novel framework: Multi-Agent framework for improving complex Legal Reasoning capability (MALR). MALR employs non-parametric learning, encouraging LLMs to automatically decompose complex legal tasks and mimic human learning process to extract insights from legal rules, helping LLMs better understand legal theories and enhance their legal reasoning abilities. Extensive experiments on multiple real-world datasets demonstrate that the proposed framework effectively addresses complex reasoning issues in practical scenarios, paving the way for more reliable applications in the legal domain.