Shortcut Learning in Legal Judgment Prediction: Empirical Evidence from the UK Employment Tribunal
Summary
This paper empirically investigates shortcut learning in legal judgment prediction using UK Employment Tribunal claims, finding that models exploit outcome-revealing cues in post-hoc judicial texts, but performance remains robust after masking such leakage features.
View Cached Full Text
Cached at: 07/07/26, 04:36 AM
# Shortcut Learning in Legal Judgment Prediction: Empirical Evidence from the UK Employment Tribunal Source: [https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.04261](https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.04261) [View PDF](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.04261) > Abstract:Current Legal Judgment Prediction \(LJP\) is constrained by its reliance on post\-hoc judicial materials, increasing the likelihood that models perform retrospective classification rather than true forecasting\. This paper empirically investigates shortcut learning in this context by studying claim\-level outcome prediction in UK Employment Tribunal \(UKET\) decisions\. Using a corpus of 33,158 individual claims, we predict outcomes from claim texts and LLM\-extracted case summaries, evaluating models ranging from interpretable TF\-IDF\-based classifiers to black\-box LLMs\. While headline predictive performance figures appear strong, we demonstrate that such performance in LJP systems trained on post\-hoc judicial text can be driven by the retrospective nature of the source material\. Stratifying the test data by human judgments of leakage reveals that performance increases where outcome\-revealing cues are embedded in the narrative\. Moreover, a model trained on just the 4% of features identified as leakage achieves high performance, outperforming human experts\. These findings substantiate concerns that LJP performance may be exaggerated by linguistic artefacts\. Yet this vulnerability is not fatal to the research agenda\. Instead, post\-hoc judgments might be treated as potentially contaminated texts, requiring active auditing\. Retraining models after masking leakage features results in only a negligible reduction in Macro\-F1\. Hence, while models will opportunistically exploit shortcuts when available, they remain capable of extracting useful predictive signals when these artefacts are removed\. ## Submission history From: Joe Watson \[[view email](https://arxiv.org/show-email/33342473/2607.04261)\] **\[v1\]**Sun, 5 Jul 2026 12:15:47 UTC \(1,152 KB\)
Similar Articles
trajectory-judge: What Outcome-Only LLM Judges Miss on Agent Trajectories
This paper introduces a deterministic testbed for evaluating LLM judges on agent trajectories, showing that outcome-only judges miss silent faults while step-based judges achieve higher recall with better calibration.
Training LLM Judges from Language Feedback via Position-Selective Self-Distillation
The paper proposes position-selective self-distillation for training LLM judges from natural language feedback, using per-position entropy shifts to mask memorization-prone tokens and improve out-of-distribution generalization over outcome-supervised RL methods like GRPO by 2–9 points on subjective tasks.
OBJECTION! Lawyer Agents Mitigate Guilty Bias in Legal Judgment Prediction
The paper introduces OBJECTION, an inference-time pipeline using adversarial lawyer agents to mitigate guilty bias in legal judgment prediction models, demonstrating a significant reduction in false guilty rates and releasing a new 'Natural Innocent' dataset.
LLMs on Tabular Data with Limited Semantics: Evidence from Industrial Car Retrofit Prediction
This paper evaluates LLM-based strategies (embedding, prompt, hybrid) against classical tabular models on an industrial car retrofit prediction dataset with hashed categorical features. It finds that tree ensembles outperform LLMs overall, but embeddings and hybrid approaches remain useful, while direct prompting fails without semantic cues.
Can LLMs Reason in a Legally Meaningful Manner? A Small-scale Study on European Court of Human Rights Cases
This small-scale study evaluates LLM reasoning in legal case forecasting using European Court of Human Rights cases, finding that models produce structurally complete but substantively shallow analyses and that LLM-based evaluators align weakly with human annotators.