Artificial Intelligence-Driven Legal Governance: A Computational Framework for Regulatory Decision Support Using Large Language Model Prompt Engineering
Keywords:
Large Language Models, Prompt Engineering, Legal Governance, Regulatory Decision Support, Natural Language Processing, AI and LawAbstract
Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) and instantaneous response engineering have created new possibilities for strengthening legal governance and modernising regulatory oversight. Conventional legal systems increasingly operate under pressures arising from expanding volumes of information, divergent interpretations, and delays in responding to newly emerging societal risks. To address these challenges, this study proposes an integrated IT framework, termed the AI-assisted legal governance system (ALGS), which incorporates instantaneous response engineering from LLMs, natural language processing, and machine learning into regulatory decision-making. ALGS is organised around four interconnected components: semantic analysis of legal texts, AI-driven risk identification, intelligent compliance monitoring, and automated generation of regulatory advice. A hierarchical instantaneous response architecture is developed and evaluated to decompose complex legal reasoning into structured sub-tasks, enabling LLMs to undertake legal interpretation, case-based reasoning, and regulatory gap analysis with improved accuracy and auditability. Experimental assessment using publicly available legal materials, including EU General Data Protection Regulation compliance documents and US stock exchange records, demonstrates a 23.7% improvement in regulatory classification accuracy and a 41.2% reduction in human review time compared with basic methods. The study further considers ethical issues surrounding AI autonomy in legal decision-making, bias reduction, and the continued requirement for human supervision. The findings suggest that carefully structured rapid-response architectures can enhance regulatory and legal governance capacity while maintaining the constitutional principles of due process and the rule of law.
Downloads
References
[1] Rissland, E. L., & Ashley, K. D. (1987). A case-based system for trade secrets law In First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL '87), https://doi.org/10.1145/41735.41743
[2] McCarty, L. T. (1977). Reflections on "Taxman": An experiment in artificial intelligence and legal reasoning. Harvard Law Review, 90(5), 837-893. https://doi.org/10.2307/1340132
[3] Aletras, N., Tsarapatsanis, D., Preoţiuc-Pietro, D., & Lampos, V. (2016). Predicting judicial decisions of the european court of human rights: a natural language processing perspective. PeerJ Computer Science, 2, e93. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.93
[4] Zhong, H., Guo, Z., Tu, C., Xiao, C., Liu, Z., & Sun, M. (2018). Legal judgment prediction via topological learning In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/d18-1390
[5] Katz, D. M., Bommarito, M. J., & Blackman, J. (2017). A general approach for predicting the behavior of the supreme court of the United States. PLOS ONE, 12(4), e0174698. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174698
[6] Surden, H. (2018). Artificial intelligence and law: An overview. Georgia State University Law Review, 35, 1305. https://tinyurl.com/mszb9txx
[7] Doshi-Velez, F., Kortz, M., Budish, R., Bavitz, C., Gershman, S. J., O'Brien, D., Scott, K., Shieber, S., Waldo, J., Weinberger, D., Weller, A., & Wood, A. (2017). Accountability of AI under the law: The role of explanation. arXiv https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3064761
[8] Bench-Capon, T., & Sartor, G. (2003). A model of legal reasoning with cases incorporating theories and values. Artificial Intelligence, 150(1-2), 97-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0004-3702(03)00108-5
[9] Fowler, J. H., Johnson, T. R., Spriggs, J. F., Jeon, S., & Wahlbeck, P. J. (2007). Network analysis and the law: Measuring the legal importance of precedents at the U.S. supreme court. Political Analysis, 15(3), 324-346. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpm011
[10] Bommarito, M. J., & Katz, D. M. (2010). A mathematical approach to the study of the united states code. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 389(19), 4195-4200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2010.05.057
[11] Cross, F. B., Spriggs, J. F., II, Johnson, T. R., & Wahlbeck, P. J. (2010). Citations in the U.S. Supreme Court: An empirical study of their use and significance. University of Illinois Law Review, 489. https://tinyurl.com/47bd7j2s
[12] Lippi, M., Pałka, P., Contissa, G., Lagioia, F., Micklitz, H.-W., Sartor, G., & Torroni, P. (2019). CLAUDETTE: An automated detector of potentially unfair clauses in online terms of service. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 27(2), 117-139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-019-09243-2
[13] Chalkidis, I., Fergadiotis, M., Malakasiotis, P., Aletras, N., & Androutsopoulos, I. (2020). LEGAL-BERT: The Muppets straight out of Law School In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.findings-emnlp.261
[14] Hoekstra, R., Breuker, J., Di Bello, M., & Boer, A. (2007). The LKIF core ontology of basic legal concepts In 2nd Workshop on Legal Ontologies and Artificial Intelligence Techniques (LOAIT 2007), https://tinyurl.com/jxnymx4v
[15] Sovrano, F., Palmirani, M., & Vitali, F. (2020). Legal knowledge extraction for knowledge graph based question-answering. In Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications. IOS Press. https://doi.org/10.3233/faia200858
[16] Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., & Russell, C. (2017). Counterfactual explanations without opening the black box: Automated decisions and the GDPR. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 31(2), 841. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3063289
[17] Wei, J., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Bosma, M., Ichter, B., Xia, F., Chi, E., Le, Q. V., & Zhou, D. (2022). Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35, https://doi.org/10.52202/068431-1800
[18] Cobbe, K., Kosaraju, V., Bavarian, M., Chen, M., Jun, H., Kaiser, L., Plappert, M., Tworek, J., Hilton, J., Nakano, R., Hesse, C., & Schulman, J. (2021). Training verifiers to solve math word problems. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2110.14168
[19] Deakin, S., Gindis, D., Hodgson, G. M., Huang, K., & Pistor, K. (2017). Legal institutionalism: Capitalism and the constitutive role of law. Journal of Comparative Economics, 45(1), 188-200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jce.2016.04.005
[20] Ashley, K. D. (2017). Artificial intelligence and legal analytics: New tools for law practice in the digital age. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316761380
[21] Achiam, J., Adler, S., Agarwal, S., Ahmad, L., Akkaya, I., Aleman, F. L., Almeida, D., Altenschmidt, J., Altman, S., & Anadkat, S. (2023). GPT-4 technical report. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2303.08774
[22] Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., Chatila, R., Chazerand, P., Dignum, V., Luetge, C., Madelin, R., Pagallo, U., Rossi, F., Schafer, B., Valcke, P., & Vayena, E. (2018). AI4People—An ethical framework for a good AI society: Opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations. Minds and Machines, 28(4), 689-707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

