Case No. 14748-08-21
Supreme Court · Jul 9, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Record ID
- case-no-14748-08-21-2025-07-09
- Observed outcome
- The court ordered the removal of the fabricated citations from the plaintiff's closing arguments and imposed a personal fine of 3,000 ILS on the plaintiff's counsel.
- Known monetary consequence
- ₪3,000
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
Blaming the software or an intern is not a defense; the signing attorney owns every citation regardless of tool or delegation.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- Tort
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Takdin AI
- Known monetary consequence
- ₪3,000
- Procedural posture
- Post-filing discovery of fabricated authorities during the court's preparation of the final judgment.
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
Counsel admitted using Takdin 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.
- Compare every quoted passage and pincite directly with the underlying opinion or 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.