Beyond the Black Box: Architecting Explainable AI for the Structured Logic of Law

The Epistemic Gap: Why Standard XAI Fails in Legal Reasoning

The core problem is that AI explanations and legal justifications operate on different epistemic planes. AI provides technical traces of decision-making, while law demands structured, precedent-driven justification. Standard XAI techniques attention maps and counterfactuals fail to bridge this gap.

Attention Maps and Legal Hierarchies 

Attention heatmaps highlight which text segments most influenced a model’s output. In legal NLP, this might show weight on statutes, precedents, or facts. But such surface-level focus ignores the hierarchical depth of legal reasoning, where the ratio decidendi matters more than phrase occurrence. Attention explanations risk creating an illusion of understanding, as they show statistical correlations rather than the layered authority structure of law. Since law derives validity from a hierarchy (statutes → precedents → principles), flat attention weights cannot meet the standard of legal justification.

Counterfactuals and Discontinuous Legal Rules 

Counterfactuals ask, “what if X were different?” They are helpful in exploring liability (e.g., intent as negligence vs. recklessness) but misaligned with law’s discontinuous rules: a small change can invalidate an entire framework, producing non-linear shifts. Simple counterfactuals may be technically accurate yet legally meaningless. Moreover, psychological research shows jurors’ reasoning can be biased by irrelevant, vivid counterfactuals (e.g., an “unusual” bicyclist route), introducing distortions into legal judgment. Thus, counterfactuals fail both technically (non-continuity) and psychologically (bias induction).

Technical Explanation vs. Legal Justification 

A key distinction exists between AI explanations (causal understanding of outputs) and legal explanations (reasoned justification of authority). Courts require legally sufficient reasoning, not mere transparency of model mechanics. A “common law of XAI” will likely evolve, defining sufficiency case by case. Importantly, the legal system does not need AI to “think like a lawyer,” but to “explain itself to a lawyer” in justificatory terms. This reframes the challenge as one of knowledge representation and interface design: AI must translate its correlational outputs into coherent, legally valid chains of reasoning comprehensible to legal professionals and decision-subjects.

A Path Forward: Designing XAI for Structured Legal Logic

To overcome current XAI limits, future systems must align with legal reasoning’s structured, hierarchical logic. A hybrid architecture combining formal argumentation frameworks with LLM-based narrative generation offers a path forward.

Argumentation-Based XAI 

Formal argumentation frameworks shift the focus from feature attribution to reasoning structure. They model arguments as graphs of support/attack relations, explaining outcomes as chains of arguments prevailing over counterarguments. For example: A1 (“Contract invalid due to missing signatures”) attacks A2 (“Valid due to verbal agreement”); absent stronger support for A2, the contract is invalid. This approach directly addresses legal explanation needs: resolving conflicts of norms, applying rules to facts, and justifying interpretive choices. Frameworks like ASPIC+ formalize such reasoning, producing transparent, defensible “why” explanations that mirror adversarial legal practice—going beyond simplistic “what happened.”

LLMs for Narrative Explanations 

Formal frameworks ensure structure but lack natural readability. Large Language Models (LLMs) can bridge this by translating structured logic into coherent, human-centric narratives. Studies show LLMs can apply doctrines like the rule against surplusage by detecting its logic in opinions even when unnamed, demonstrating their capacity for subtle legal analysis. In a hybrid system, the argumentation core provides the verified reasoning chain, while the LLM serves as a “legal scribe,” generating accessible memos or judicial-style explanations. This combines symbolic transparency with neural narrative fluency. Crucially, human oversight is needed to prevent LLM hallucinations (e.g., fabricated case law). Thus, LLMs should assist in explanation, not act as the source of legal truth.

The Regulatory Imperative: Navigating GDPR and the EU AI Act

Legal AI is shaped by GDPR and the EU AI Act, which impose complementary duties of transparency and explainability.

GDPR and the “Right to Explanation” 

Scholars debate whether GDPR creates a binding “right to explanation.” Still, Articles 13–15 and Recital 71 establish a de facto right to “meaningful information about the logic involved” in automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effect (e.g., bail, sentencing, loan denial). Key nuance: only “solely automated” decisions—those without human intervention—are covered. A human’s discretionary review removes the classification, even if superficial. This loophole enables nominal compliance while undermining safeguards. France’s Digital Republic Act addresses this gap by explicitly covering decision-support systems.

EU AI Act: Risk and Systemic Transparency 

The AI Act applies a risk-based framework: unacceptable, high, limited, and minimal risk. Administration of justice is explicitly high-risk. Providers of High-Risk AI Systems (HRAIS) must meet Article 13 obligations: systems must be designed for user comprehension, provide clear “instructions for use,” and ensure effective human oversight. A public database for HRAIS adds systemic transparency, moving beyond individual rights toward public accountability.

The following table provides a comparative analysis of these two crucial European legal frameworks:

Feature	GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation)	EU AI Act (EU AI Act)
Primary Scope	Processing of personal data 25	All AI systems, tiered by risk 22
Main Focus	Individual rights (e.g., to access, erasure) 25	Systemic transparency and governance 24
Trigger for Explanation	A decision “based solely on automated processing” that has a “legal or similarly significant effect” 20	AI systems classified as “high-risk” 22
Explanation Standard	“Meaningful information about the logic involved” 19	“Instructions for use,” “traceability,” human oversight 24
Enforcement	Data Protection Authorities (DPAs) and national law 25	National competent authorities and the EU database for HRAIS 24

Legally-Informed XAI 

Different stakeholders require tailored explanations:

• Decision-subjects (e.g., defendants) need legally actionable explanations for challenge.
• Judges/decision-makers need legally informative justifications tied to principles and precedents.
• Developers/regulators need technical transparency to detect bias or audit compliance.
  Thus, explanation design must ask “who needs what kind of explanation, and for what legal purpose?” rather than assume one-size-fits-all.

The Practical Paradox: Transparency vs. Confidentiality

Explanations must be transparent but risk exposing sensitive data, privilege, or proprietary information.

GenAI and Privilege Risks 

Use of public Generative AI (GenAI) in legal practice threatens attorney-client privilege. The ABA Formal Opinion 512 stresses lawyers’ duties of technological competence, output verification, and confidentiality. Attorneys must not disclose client data to GenAI unless confidentiality is guaranteed; informed consent may be required for self-learning tools. Privilege depends on a reasonable expectation of confidentiality. Inputting client data into public models like ChatGPT risks data retention, reuse for training, or exposure via shareable links, undermining confidentiality and creating discoverable “records.” Safeguarding privilege thus requires strict controls and proactive compliance strategies.

A Framework for Trust: “Privilege by Design”

To address risks to confidentiality, the concept of AI privilege or “privilege by design” has been proposed as a sui generis legal framework recognizing a new confidential relationship between humans and intelligent systems. Privilege attaches only if providers meet defined technical and organizational safeguards, creating incentives for ethical AI design.

Three Dimensions:

1. Who holds it? The user, not the provider, holds the privilege, ensuring control over data and the ability to resist compelled disclosure.
2. What is protected? User inputs, AI outputs in response, and user-specific inferences—but not the provider’s general knowledge base.
3. When does it apply? Only when safeguards are in place: e.g., end-to-end encryption, prohibition of training reuse, secure retention, and independent audits.

Exceptions apply for overriding public interests (crime-fraud, imminent harm, national security).

Tiered Explanation Framework: To resolve the transparency–confidentiality paradox, a tiered governance model provides stakeholder-specific explanations:

• Regulators/auditors: detailed, technical outputs (e.g., raw argumentation framework traces) to assess bias or discrimination.
• Decision-subjects: simplified, legally actionable narratives (e.g., LLM-generated memos) enabling contestation or recourse.
• Others (e.g., developers, courts): tailored levels of access depending on role.

Analogous to AI export controls or AI talent classifications, this model ensures “just enough” disclosure for accountability while protecting proprietary systems and sensitive client data.

---

References

1. Attention Mechanism for Natural Language Processing | S-Logix, accessed August 22, 2025, https://slogix.in/machine-learning/attention-mechanism-for-natural-language-processing/
2. Top 6 Most Useful Attention Mechanism In NLP Explained – Spot Intelligence, accessed August 22, 2025, https://spotintelligence.com/2023/01/12/attention-mechanism-in-nlp/
3. The Hierarchical Model and H. L. A. Hart’s Concept of Law – OpenEdition Journals, accessed August 22, 2025, https://journals.openedition.org/revus/2746
4. Hierarchy in International Law: A Sketch, accessed August 22, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/ejil/article-pdf/8/4/566/6723495/8-4-566.pdf
5. Counterfactual Reasoning in Litigation – Number Analytics, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/counterfactual-reasoning-litigation
6. Counterfactual Thinking in Courtroom | Insights from Jury Analyst, accessed August 22, 2025, https://juryanalyst.com/counterfactual-thinking-courtroom/
7. (PDF) Explainable AI and Law: An Evidential Survey – ResearchGate, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376661358_Explainable_AI_and_Law_An_Evidential_Survey
8. Can XAI methods satisfy legal obligations of transparency, reason- giving and legal justification? – CISPA, accessed August 22, 2025, https://cispa.de/elsa/2024/ELSA%20%20D3.4%20Short%20Report.pdf
9. THE JUDICIAL DEMAND FOR EXPLAINABLE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, accessed August 22, 2025, https://columbialawreview.org/content/the-judicial-demand-for-explainable-artificial-intelligence/
10. Legal Frameworks for XAI Technologies, accessed August 22, 2025, https://xaiworldconference.com/2025/legal-frameworks-for-xai-technologies/
11. Argumentation for Explainable AI – DICE Research Group, accessed August 22, 2025, https://dice-research.org/teaching/ArgXAI2025/
12. Argumentation and explanation in the law – PMC – PubMed Central, accessed August 22, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10507624/
13. Argumentation and explanation in the law – Frontiers, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/artificial-intelligence/articles/10.3389/frai.2023.1130559/full
14. University of Groningen A formal framework for combining legal …, accessed August 22, 2025, https://research.rug.nl/files/697552965/everything23.pdf
15. LLMs for Explainable AI: A Comprehensive Survey – arXiv, accessed August 22, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2504.00125v1
16. How to Use Large Language Models for Empirical Legal Research, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/12812-3choillmsforempiricallegalresearchpdf
17. Fine-Tuning Large Language Models for Legal Reasoning: Methods & Challenges – Law.co, accessed August 22, 2025, https://law.co/blog/fine-tuning-large-language-models-for-legal-reasoning
18. How Large Language Models (LLMs) Can Transform Legal Industry – Springs – Custom AI Compliance Solutions For Enterprises, accessed August 22, 2025, https://springsapps.com/knowledge/how-large-language-models-llms-can-transform-legal-industry
19. Meaningful information and the right to explanation | International Data Privacy Law, accessed August 22, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/idpl/article/7/4/233/4762325
20. Right to explanation – Wikipedia, accessed August 22, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_explanation
21. What does the UK GDPR say about automated decision-making and …, accessed August 22, 2025, https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/individual-rights/automated-decision-making-and-profiling/what-does-the-uk-gdpr-say-about-automated-decision-making-and-profiling/
22. The EU AI Act: What Businesses Need To Know | Insights – Skadden, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2024/06/quarterly-insights/the-eu-ai-act-what-businesses-need-to-know
23. AI Act | Shaping Europe’s digital future – European Union, accessed August 22, 2025, https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory-framework-ai
24. Key Issue 5: Transparency Obligations – EU AI Act, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.euaiact.com/key-issue/5
25. Your rights in relation to automated decision making, including profiling (Article 22 of the GDPR) | Data Protection Commission, accessed August 22, 2025, http://dataprotection.ie/en/individuals/know-your-rights/your-rights-relation-automated-decision-making-including-profiling
26. Legally-Informed Explainable AI – arXiv, accessed August 22, 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.10708
27. Holistic Explainable AI (H-XAI): Extending Transparency Beyond Developers in AI-Driven Decision Making – arXiv, accessed August 22, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2508.05792v1
28. When AI Conversations Become Compliance Risks: Rethinking …, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/when-ai-conversations-become-compliance-9205824/
29. Privilege Considerations When Using Generative Artificial Intelligence in Legal Practice, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.frantzward.com/privilege-considerations-when-using-generative-artificial-intelligence-in-legal-practice/
30. ABA Formal Opinion 512: The Paradigm for Generative AI in Legal Practice – UNC Law Library – The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, accessed August 22, 2025, https://library.law.unc.edu/2025/02/aba-formal-opinion-512-the-paradigm-for-generative-ai-in-legal-practice/
31. Ethics for Attorneys on GenAI Use: ABA Formal Opinion #512 | Jenkins Law Library, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.jenkinslaw.org/blog/2024/08/08/ethics-attorneys-genai-use-aba-formal-opinion-512
32. AI in Legal: Balancing Innovation with Accountability, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.legalpracticeintelligence.com/blogs/practice-intelligence/ai-in-legal-balancing-innovation-with-accountability
33. AI privilege: Protecting user interactions with generative AI – ITLawCo, accessed August 22, 2025, https://itlawco.com/ai-privilege-protecting-user-interactions-with-generative-ai/
34. The privacy-explainability trade-off: unraveling the impacts of differential privacy and federated learning on attribution methods – Frontiers, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/artificial-intelligence/articles/10.3389/frai.2024.1236947/full
35. Differential Privacy – Belfer Center, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/2024-08/diffprivacy-3.pdf
36. Understanding the Artificial Intelligence Diffusion Framework: Can Export Controls Create a … – RAND, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA3776-1.html
37. Technical Tiers: A New Classification Framework for Global AI Workforce Analysis, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.interface-eu.org/publications/technical-tiers-in-ai-talent