Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly explored for legal argument generation, yet they pose significant risks of manipulation through hallucination and ungrounded persuasion, and often fail to utilize provided factual bases effectively or abstain when arguments are untenable. This paper introduces a novel reflective multi-agent method designed to address these challenges in the context of legally compliant persuasion. Our approach employs specialized agents (factor analyst and argument polisher) in an iterative refinement process to generate 3-ply legal arguments (plaintiff, defendant, rebuttal). We evaluate reflective multi-agent against single-agent, enhanced-prompt single-agent, and non-reflective multi-agent baselines using four diverse LLMs (GPT-4o, GPT-4o-mini, Llama-4-Maverick-17b-128e, Llama-4-Scout-17b-16e) across three legal scenarios: "arguable", "mismatched", and "non-arguable". Results demonstrate that the reflective multi-agent approach excels at successful abstention by preventing generation when arguments cannot be grounded, improves hallucination accuracy by reducing fabricated and misattributed factors and enhances factor utilization recall by better using the provided case facts. These findings suggest that structured reflection within a multi-agent framework offers a robust method for fostering ethical persuasion and mitigating manipulation in LLM-based legal argumentation systems.