A core part of legal work that has been underexplored in Legal NLP is the writing and editing of legal briefs. This requires not only a thorough understanding of the law of a jurisdiction, from judgments to statutes, but also the ability to make new arguments to try to expand the law in a new direction and make novel and creative arguments that are persuasive to judges. To capture and evaluate these legal skills in language models, we introduce BRIEFME, a new dataset focused on legal briefs. It contains three tasks for language models to assist legal professionals in writing briefs: argument summarization, argument completion, and case retrieval. In this work, we describe the creation of these tasks, analyze them, and show how current models perform. We see that today’s large language models (LLMs) are already quite good at the summarization and guided completion tasks, even beating human-generated headings. Yet, they perform poorly on other tasks in our benchmark: realistic argument completion and retrieving relevant legal cases. We hope this dataset encourages more development in Legal NLP in ways that will specifically aid people in performing legal work.

Is explainability a false promise? This debate has emerged from the insufficient evidence that explanations help people in situations they are introduced for. More human-centered, application-grounded evaluations of explanations are needed to settle this. Yet, with no established guidelines for such studies in NLP, researchers accustomed to standardized proxy evaluations must discover appropriate measurements, tasks, datasets, and sensible models for human-AI teams in their studies. To aid with this, we first review existing metrics suitable for application-grounded evaluation. We then establish criteria to select appropriate datasets, and using them, we find that only 4 out of over 50 datasets available for explainability research in NLP meet them. We then demonstrate the importance of reassessing the state of the art to form and study human-AI teams: teaming people with models for certain tasks might only now start to make sense, and for others, it remains unsound. Finally, we present the exemplar studies of human-AI decision-making for one of the identified tasks — verifying the correctness of a legal claim given a contract. Our results show that providing AI predictions, with or without explanations, does not cause decision makers to speed up their work without compromising performance. We argue for revisiting the setup of human-AI teams and improving automatic deferral of instances to AI, where explanations could play a useful role.