CyberIntel ⬡ News
★ Saved ◆ Cyber Reads
← Back ◬ AI & Machine Learning Jun 02, 2026

On Wednesdays, We Ask Questions: Optimizing "Active Listening" in Automated Legal Triage and Referral

arXiv AI Archived Jun 02, 2026 ✓ Full text saved

arXiv:2606.00272v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The FETCH classifier generates follow-up questions to help refine the best match for the applicant's legal problem, using a low-cost ensemble of LLMs. In this paper, we describe an expert attorney and LLM-assisted evaluation of the follow-up question approach in FETCH and show that while low-cost LLMs perform well at classification tasks, generating high-quality plain-language questions in this setting appears to require a more sophisticated and hi

Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary · Claude Sonnet


    Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence [Submitted on 29 May 2026] On Wednesdays, We Ask Questions: Optimizing "Active Listening" in Automated Legal Triage and Referral Quinten Steenhuis, Jacqueline Harvey The FETCH classifier generates follow-up questions to help refine the best match for the applicant's legal problem, using a low-cost ensemble of LLMs. In this paper, we describe an expert attorney and LLM-assisted evaluation of the follow-up question approach in FETCH and show that while low-cost LLMs perform well at classification tasks, generating high-quality plain-language questions in this setting appears to require a more sophisticated and higher-cost model. Through discussion with legal intake workers, we propose a rubric for the evaluation of legal intake classification questions, and we find that prompt engineering alone is not enough to improve question quality for intake purposes. We also find that LLM-as-judge and human ratings diverge. We demonstrate that with the addition of a single high-cost model, GPT-5, the classifier can elicit relevant information from applicants for legal help, and that the questions lead to more accurate performance at classification tasks. We also find uneven fact elicitation across different categories, including domestic violence, at odds with family law screening protocols, suggesting the value of including dedicated screening panels for certain areas of law. Comments: Working paper submitted as accepted to AIDA2J workshop at International Conference for AI and Law in Singapore, June 2026 Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL); Computers and Society (cs.CY) Cite as: arXiv:2606.00272 [cs.AI]   (or arXiv:2606.00272v1 [cs.AI] for this version)   https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.00272 Focus to learn more Submission history From: Quinten Steenhuis [view email] [v1] Fri, 29 May 2026 19:07:11 UTC (460 KB) Access Paper: HTML (experimental) view license Current browse context: cs.AI < prev   |   next > new | recent | 2026-06 Change to browse by: cs cs.CL cs.CY References & Citations NASA ADS Google Scholar Semantic Scholar Export BibTeX Citation Bookmark Bibliographic Tools Bibliographic and Citation Tools Bibliographic Explorer Toggle Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?) Connected Papers Toggle Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?) Litmaps Toggle Litmaps (What is Litmaps?) scite.ai Toggle scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?) Code, Data, Media Demos Related Papers About arXivLabs Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)
    💬 Team Notes
    Article Info
    Source
    arXiv AI
    Category
    ◬ AI & Machine Learning
    Published
    Jun 02, 2026
    Archived
    Jun 02, 2026
    Full Text
    ✓ Saved locally
    Open Original ↗