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