A Multi-Agent Court Simulation Framework for Civil Litigation Based on Large Language Models

Original Author Team: foggpoy Research Team Source Platform: arXiv Original Title: Civil Court Simulation with Large Language Models Original Link: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.09632v1 Publication Date: June 8, 2026 Open-Source Code and Dataset: https://github.com/foggpoy/Civil-Court

This article introduces a multi-agent court simulation framework for Chinese civil litigation. By following the five-stage trial process specified in the Civil Procedure Law, integrating memory modules and legal provision retrieval functions, it enables scalable legal education and practical training. It also deeply analyzes the key factors affecting the reliability of the simulation, opening up new directions for legal AI applications.

Traditional court simulations rely on real people to play roles, which have limitations such as high organizational costs, difficulty in large-scale promotion, and limited scenario coverage. With the improvement of LLM capabilities, AI simulation has become an alternative solution, with advantages like scalability, low cost, and flexible scenarios.

Existing research mostly focuses on criminal case simulations (standardized procedures, clear roles), but civil litigation is more common and complex in practice:

• Diverse litigation claims (monetary compensation, injunctions, etc.)
• Complex liability allocation (liability division among multiple parties)
• Flexible remedies (compensation amount, performance period, etc.) These characteristics make civil litigation simulation more challenging and practically valuable.

The framework adopts a multi-agent architecture and strictly follows China's Civil Procedure Law, divided into a five-stage process:

1. Pre-trial Preparation: Initialize case information (complaint, answer, etc.) and agents prepare strategies
2. Court Investigation: Presided over by the judge, both parties state facts, present evidence, and cross-examine
3. Court Debate: Both parties debate on controversial issues such as application of law and liability determination
4. Final Statement: Both parties summarize their views and demands
5. Deliberation and Judgment: The judge deliberates and makes a judgment including fact-finding and application of law

Core Modules:

• Memory Module: Records case facts, evidence information, and legal disputes to avoid contradictions
• Legal Provision Retrieval: Supports judges in citing relevant legal provisions to enhance simulation authenticity

Experimental validation of the framework's effectiveness:

• Judgment Reliability: Can correctly handle facts and apply laws, performing well in liability allocation and multi-item rulings
• Key Role of Memory Module: When retrieving information is accurately recorded, agent behavior and judgment quality are significantly improved; memory defects lead to factual errors and improper application of law

Five-layer Factor Framework Affecting Simulation Reliability:

1. Legal Basis: Accuracy of understanding and citation of substantive and procedural laws
2. Information Conditions: Completeness and accuracy of case information
3. Judicial Ability and Role Positioning: Agents' understanding of role responsibilities
4. Organizational Pressure: Institutional constraints in the simulation environment (e.g., trial time limits)
5. Social Context: External factors such as public opinion and policy orientation

Application Prospects of the Framework:

• Digital Legal Education: Supplement traditional moot courts, provide more practice opportunities, and test litigation strategies
• Large-scale Judicial Training: Provide low-cost and efficient continuing education for judges and lawyers, accumulate experience, and unify judgment standards
• Legal Research Experimental Platform: Conduct controllable experiments to study the impact of factors on judicial decisions
• Intelligent Justice Exploration: Provide an experimental foundation for future advanced legal AI systems

Current Limitations:

1. Gap Between Simulation and Reality: There are still differences between AI behavior patterns and real humans
2. Handling Complex Cases: Limited ability to handle difficult cases with multiple parties and complex legal relationships
3. Limitations in Value Judgment: Difficult to fully grasp decisions involving value trade-offs and policy considerations

Future Directions:

• Introduce more powerful base models
• Improve memory and reasoning mechanisms
• Expand coverage of case types
• Develop more refined evaluation metrics