DLawBench: leaderboard

DLawBench (2026) has LLMs act as lawyers in multi-turn consultations with simulated clients (cooperative, dependent, withdrawn or adversarial) over real Chinese-law and U.S.-law cases, then write a legal memo that a three-judge LLM panel scores against expert rubrics. This board is resolution, the mean of fact resolution and issue resolution in the memo, averaged over both jurisdictions. Scores are rates on a 0 to 100 scale; higher is better.

Metric: Resolution score (0-100), a rate scaled by 100: mean of fact resolution (annotated facts carried into the legal memo and correctly preserved or reframed against the court record) and issue resolution (expert-specified legal analysis points addressed), averaged over the two jurisdictions, on 461 real Chinese-law and U.S.-law cases replayed as multi-turn consultations with a Claude Sonnet 4.6 client simulator in four narrative styles; judged by a GPT-5.1, Claude Opus 4.6 and Gemini 3.1 Pro panel (median; same-vendor judges recuse), empty memos count as zero; provider decoding defaults; higher is better. Source: arxiv.org. Saturation forecast: Around February 2027. 26 models tracked.

Top models

#ModelScoreOverall rank
1GPT-5.556.2#49
2GPT-5.454.6#123
3GPT-5.249.9#176
4Gemini 3.1 Pro (Preview)47.2#94
5Claude Opus 4.744#79
6Qwen 3.6 Max Preview43.5#159
7Claude Opus 4.643.3#102
8Kimi K2.642.4#178
9GLM-5.141.8#179
10DeepSeek V4 Pro41.5#188
11Kimi K2.539.7#256
12Claude Sonnet 4.637.6#161
13Qwen 3.6 Plus37.2#222
14GLM-536.5#260
15Grok 4.1 Fast34.9#430

No result here: #1 Claude Fable 5.2, #2 Gemini 4 Carbon, #5 Claude Opus 5.5.

Interactive version: theaggregate.ai/benchmark?slug=dlawbench · How It Works · Data refreshed daily, snapshot 2026-11-13.