Cohen v. State of Israel et al.
Jerusalem District Court · Nov 12, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Jerusalem District Court
- Record ID
- cohen-v-state-of-israel-et-al-2025-11-12
- Observed outcome
- Claim dismissed at the threshold; the plaintiff ordered to pay ILS 16,000 costs to the defendants (ILS 8,000 each to the State and to defendant 2) and his counsel ILS 4,000 in personal costs to the State treasury for relying on invented authorities (paras 26-28, 61)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | Misrepresented exhibits Outcome: Claim dismissed at the threshold; the plaintiff ordered to pay ILS 16,000 costs to the defendants (ILS 8,000 each to the State and to defendant 2) and his counsel ILS 4,000 in personal costs to the State treasury for relying on invented authorities (paras 26-28, 61).
Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | Misrepresented exhibits || Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel based the claims on 11 judgments of which only 2 exist in the legal databases (9 invented); asked by the court, counsel replied that an AI tool was used to write the claims and called it a good-faith error.
Courts will impose adverse costs the moment a single AI fabrication slips through; enforce a signed verification checklist before filing.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Contract
- Trial
- Monetary
- Case Dismissed
- AI attribution
- Not Established
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Claim dismissed at the threshold; the plaintiff ordered to pay ILS 16,000 costs to the defendants (ILS 8,000 each to the State and to defendant 2) and his counsel ILS 4,000 in personal costs to the State treasury for relying on invented authorities (paras 26-28, 61)
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 current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Limited (medium confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
- Assign a responsible reviewer for AI-assisted research and drafting.
- Retain a matter-level record of source checks and corrections.