Three publicly-available LLM specifically designed for legal tasks have been implemented and shown that classification accuracy can benefit from training over legal corpora, but why and how? Here we use two publicly-available legal datasets, a simpler binary classification task of ``overruling'' texts, and a more elaborate multiple choice task identifying ``holding'' judicial decisions. We report on experiments contrasting the legal LLM and a generic BERT model for comparison, against both datasets. We use integrated gradient attribution techniques to impute ``causes'' of variation in the models' perfomance, and characterize them in terms of the tokenizations each use. We find that while all models can correctly classify some test examples from the casehold task, other examples can only be identified by only one, model, and attribution can be used to highlight the reasons for this. We find that differential behavior of the models' tokenizers accounts for most of the difference and analyze these differences in terms of the legal language they process. Frequency analysis of tokens generated by dataset texts, combined with use of known ``stop word'' lists, allow identification of tokens that are clear signifiers of legal topics.