Case No. 14748-08-21
Supreme Court · Jul 9, 2025
What happened in this matter?
The court sanctioned the plaintiff's counsel for submitting five fabricated Supreme Court decisions. Rejecting counsel's attempt to blame AI software and an intern, the court ordered the removal of the false citations and imposed a personal fine of 3,000 ILS payable to the state treasury.
- Why the court cared
- The court reasoned that attorneys cannot delegate their professional duty of verification to AI tools or subordinates. It emphasized that counsel must exercise critical, independent judgment to ensure the accuracy of all filings. The court noted that the time wasted by the court and the need to maintain the integrity of the judicial process necessitated a personal monetary sanction against the attorneys.
- Why it matters now
- Blaming the software or an intern is not a defense; the signing attorney owns every citation regardless of tool or delegation.
Why this matter is tracked
In a civil tort case, the Magistrate Court at Krayot discovered that plaintiff's counsel submitted five fabricated Israeli Supreme Court decisions in their closing arguments. The court found that the citations, quotes, and docket details were entirely nonexistent. Counsel attributed the errors to the use of AI software and an intern's oversight, requesting to strike the citations. The court rejected these explanations, emphasizing that attorneys bear non-delegable professional responsibility for the accuracy of all filings. Citing recent Supreme Court guidance on AI usage, the court ordered the removal of the fabricated citations and imposed a personal monetary sanction of 3,000 ILS on the plaintiff's counsel payable to the state treasury.
Blaming the software or an intern is not a defense; the signing attorney owns every citation regardless of tool or delegation.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
Counsel admitted using Takdin AI.
Post-filing discovery of fabricated authorities during the court's preparation of the final judgment.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff’s counsel cited five Israeli Supreme Court decisions that do not exist in legal databases.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Quotes attributed to the supposed Supreme Court decisions were found to be nonexistent.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | The cited case references showed mismatched docket numbers, party names, content, and P.D. citations.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Case No. 14748-08-21?
- The court sanctioned the plaintiff's counsel for submitting five fabricated Supreme Court decisions. Rejecting counsel's attempt to blame AI software and an intern, the court ordered the removal of the false citations and imposed a personal fine of 3,000 ILS payable to the state treasury.
- Why does Case No. 14748-08-21 matter for legal AI risk?
- Blaming the software or an intern is not a defense; the signing attorney owns every citation regardless of tool or delegation.
- What does the public record establish about Case No. 14748-08-21?
- 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.
- Which source supports this Case No. 14748-08-21 summary?
- The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.
Related matters
Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.