Case No. 525309-08-22
Jerusalem Enforcement and Collection Authority · Jun 30, 2025
What happened in this matter?
The court issued a warning to counsel regarding the submission of fabricated legal authority and misrepresented statutes. The Registrar denied the motion to lift the travel ban due to procedural failures and the lack of substantive merit, explicitly identifying the errors as the result of uncritical AI usage.
- Why the court cared
- The Registrar reasoned that the motion was procedurally invalid under Regulations 15(e) and 21 for lack of an affidavit and security. Substantively, the Registrar found that the debtor failed to meet the criteria for lifting a travel ban under Section 74d of the Execution Law. The court further reasoned that counsel's reliance on non-existent subsections and incorrect amendment dates demonstrated a failure to perform necessary professional verification, specifically noting that AI tools are not a substitute for professional legal research.
- Why it matters now
- Verify statutory subsections and amendment dates directly — AI routinely invents code sections that sound plausible.
Why this matter is tracked
In a proceeding before the Jerusalem Enforcement and Collection Authority, counsel for the debtor filed a motion to lift a travel ban, relying on a non-existent statutory subsection (66א(א1)) and misrepresenting the effective date and scope of Amendment 47 to the Execution Law. The Registrar noted that the cited subsection does not exist and that the referenced amendment concerns different subject matter. The Registrar concluded that the motion was procedurally deficient for lack of a required affidavit and failure to provide security. The court explicitly attributed the errors to the uncritical use of AI tools, warning that such reliance on AI without human verification constitutes a failure to uphold professional duties and leads to the submission of misleading filings.
Verify statutory subsections and amendment dates directly — AI routinely invents code sections that sound plausible.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The court explicitly mentions the use of AI software in the drafting of the motion.
The matter was a motion (Request No. 75) filed by the debtor's counsel to lift a travel ban, which the Registrar denied in a written decision dated June 30, 2025.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Legal Norm | Counsel quoted and relied on a non-existent subsection 66א(א1) purportedly barring exit bans below 40,000 NIS absent special reasons; the Court could not locate such subsection or text.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Counsel asserted that Amendment 47 to the Execution Law took effect on 15.02.2020 and governs exit-ban thresholds; the Court notes Amendment 47 is from 03.08.2015 and concerns discharge for 'limited means' debtors, not exit bans.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Case No. 525309-08-22?
- The court issued a warning to counsel regarding the submission of fabricated legal authority and misrepresented statutes. The Registrar denied the motion to lift the travel ban due to procedural failures and the lack of substantive merit, explicitly identifying the errors as the result of uncritical AI usage.
- Why does Case No. 525309-08-22 matter for legal AI risk?
- Verify statutory subsections and amendment dates directly — AI routinely invents code sections that sound plausible.
- What does the public record establish about Case No. 525309-08-22?
- 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. 525309-08-22 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.