Recent advances in test-time scaling of large language models (LLMs), exemplified by DeepSeek-R1 and OpenAI’s o1, show that extending the chain of thought during inference can significantly improve general reasoning performance. However, the impact of this paradigm on legal reasoning remains insufficiently explored. To address this gap, we present the first systematic evaluation of 12 LLMs, including both reasoning-focused and general-purpose models, across 17 Chinese and English legal tasks spanning statutory and case-law traditions. In addition, we curate a bilingual chain-of-thought dataset for legal reasoning through distillation from DeepSeek-R1 and develop Legal-R1, an open-source model specialized for the legal domain. Experimental results show that Legal-R1 delivers competitive performance across diverse tasks. DeepSeek-R1 exhibits clear advantages in Chinese legal reasoning, while OpenAI’s o1 achieves comparable results on English tasks. We further conduct a detailed error analysis, which reveals recurring issues such as outdated legal knowledge, limited capacity for legal interpretation, and susceptibility to factual hallucinations. These findings delineate the main obstacles confronting legal-domain LLMs and suggest promising directions for future research. We release the dataset and model at https://github.com/YinghaoHu/Legal-R1-14B.