LEXam: Benchmarking Legal Reasoning on 340 Law Exams

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 intro duce 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 4,886 law exam questions in English and German, including 2,841 long-form, open-ended questions and 2,045 multiple-choice questions. 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. We have open-sourced our code on GitHub and released our data on Hugging Face. Project page: https://lexam-benchmark.github.io/.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Repository for Publications and Research Data (ETH Zurich)
Published
2025-10-23
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-c-000790721
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Law
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

LEXam: Benchmarking Legal Reasoning on 340 Law Exams

Mrinmaya Sachan, Christoph Engel, Mubashara Akhtar, Alexander Stremitzer et al.
Repository for Publications and Research Data (ETH Zurich)
Artificial Intelligence in Law
article

LEXam: Benchmarking Legal Reasoning on 340 Law Exams

Mrinmaya Sachan, Christoph Engel, Mubashara Akhtar, Alexander Stremitzer, Joel Niklaus, Florian Geering, Markus Leippold, Yoan Hermstrüwer, Jakob Merane, Yu Fan, Tian Yang, Y. Huang, Oliver Dreyer, Etienne Salimbeni, Jingwei Ni, Elliott Ash, Daniel Brunner
article en

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 intro duce 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 4,886 law exam questions in English and German, including 2,841 long-form, open-ended questions and 2,045 multiple-choice questions. 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. We have open-sourced our code on GitHub and released our data on Hugging Face. Project page: https://lexam-benchmark.github.io/.

Repository for Publications and Research Data (ETH Zurich)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 17%
Artificial Intelligence in Law
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.