The rapid advancement of domain-specific large language models (LLMs) in fields like law necessitates frameworks that account for nuanced regional legal distinctions, which are critical for ensuring compliance and trustworthiness. Existing legal evaluation benchmarks often lack adaptability and fail to address diverse local contexts, limiting their utility in dynamically evolving regulatory landscapes. To address these gaps, we propose AutoLaw, a novel violation detection framework that combines adversarial data generation with a jury-inspired deliberation process to enhance legal compliance of LLMs. Unlike static approaches, AutoLaw dynamically synthesizes case law to reflect local regulations and employs a pool of LLM-based "jurors" to simulate judicial decision-making. Jurors are ranked and selected based on synthesized legal expertise, enabling a deliberation process that minimizes bias and improves detection accuracy. Evaluations across three benchmarks: Law-SG, Case-SG (legality), and Unfair-TOS (policy), demonstrate AutoLaw's effectiveness: adversarial data generation improves LLM discrimination, while the jury-based voting strategy significantly boosts violation detection rates. Our results highlight the framework's ability to adaptively probe legal misalignments and deliver reliable, context-aware judgments, offering a scalable solution for evaluating and enhancing LLMs in legally sensitive applications.