Lawma: The Power of Specialization for Legal Tasks (2407.16615v1)

Abstract: Annotation and classification of legal text are central components of empirical legal research. Traditionally, these tasks are often delegated to trained research assistants. Motivated by the advances in LLMing, empirical legal scholars are increasingly turning to prompting commercial models, hoping that it will alleviate the significant cost of human annotation. Despite growing use, our understanding of how to best utilize LLMs for legal tasks remains limited. We conduct a comprehensive study of 260 legal text classification tasks, nearly all new to the machine learning community. Starting from GPT-4 as a baseline, we show that it has non-trivial but highly varied zero-shot accuracy, often exhibiting performance that may be insufficient for legal work. We then demonstrate that a lightly fine-tuned Llama 3 model vastly outperforms GPT-4 on almost all tasks, typically by double-digit percentage points. We find that larger models respond better to fine-tuning than smaller models. A few tens to hundreds of examples suffice to achieve high classification accuracy. Notably, we can fine-tune a single model on all 260 tasks simultaneously at a small loss in accuracy relative to having a separate model for each task. Our work points to a viable alternative to the predominant practice of prompting commercial models. For concrete legal tasks with some available labeled data, researchers are better off using a fine-tuned open-source model.