Anonymous v. Anonymous
Israel · Apr 29, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Israel
- Record ID
- anonymous-v-anonymous-2025-04-29
- Observed outcome
- Petition dismissed in limine; plaintiff's counsel ordered to pay ₪1,500 in personal costs to the state and ₪3,500 to the defendant.
- Known monetary consequence
- ₪5,000
Why this matter warrants attention
The court dismissed the petition in limine and imposed personal costs on the plaintiff's counsel, totaling ₪5,000, for submitting fabricated legal citations generated by AI. The judge ruled that counsel failed in their professional duty to verify the accuracy and existence of authorities cited in pleadings, regardless of whether the submission was intentional or negligent.
The judge found that legal pleadings are the “foundational documents of judicial proceedings” and must be “accurate, reliable, and competently drafted.” Submitting fictitious judgments constitutes not only a procedural abuse but an ethical breach. Even absent bad faith, failure to verify AI-generated legal content breaches a lawyer’s core obligations
Misnumbering is not a credible defense when citations do not exist anywhere—personal costs follow denial.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Family
- Trial
- Monetary
- Case Dismissed
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- Generative AI (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- ₪5,000
- Procedural posture
- Petition for reduction of alimony dismissed in limine by the Family Court in Petah Tikva.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The court identified the citations as products of generative AI.
The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Escalate unresolved verification failures before filing and preserve the responsible reviewer's signoff record.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.