Case No. 525309-08-22
Jerusalem Enforcement and Collection Authority · Jun 30, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Jerusalem Enforcement and Collection Authority
- Record ID
- case-no-525309-08-22-2025-06-30
- Observed outcome
- The motion was denied, and the court issued a formal warning to counsel regarding the use of AI in legal filings.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
Verify statutory subsections and amendment dates directly — AI routinely invents code sections that sound plausible.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fabricated_legal_authority
- Misrepresented_legal_norm
- Lack_of_human_verification
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- AI attribution
- Explicitly Recorded
- Recorded tool
- AI (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- 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.
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 explicitly mentions the use of AI software in the drafting of the motion.
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.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.