DLawBench - Elicitation: 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DLawBench (2026) has LLMs act as lawyers in multi-turn consultations with simulated clients (cooperative, dependent, withdrawn or adversarial) over real Chinese-law and U.S.-law cases, then write a legal memo that a three-judge LLM panel scores against expert rubrics.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 elicitation, the mean of fact coverage and expert-specified follow-up questions asked during the consultation. Scores are rates on a 0 to 100 scale; higher is better.

Metric: Elicitation score (0-100), a rate scaled by 100: mean of fact coverage (annotated case facts the lawyer collects) and inquiry (expert-specified follow-up questions asked), 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-5.570.7#49
2GPT-5.468#123
3GPT-5.267.5#176
4Grok 4.1 Fast59.6#430
5Seed 2.0 Pro57#211
6Claude Opus 4.656.6#102
7Gemini 3.1 Pro (Preview)56.5#94
8GLM-5.156.3#179
9Qwen 3.6 Max Preview55.5#159
10Kimi K2.655.3#178
11DeepSeek V4 Pro54.5#188
12Claude Opus 4.754.3#79
13Kimi K2.553.5#256
14GLM-552.1#260
15Qwen 3.6 Plus51.5#222

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

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