Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Gadban v. Israel Land Authority
D. Haifa · Aug 6, 2025
IsraelEditorial impact: lowfake citationsothertrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
In Gadban v. Israel Land Authority, the Haifa District Court ordered the claimant to produce more than thirty decisions cited in a response. Thirty-one of thirty-two citations could not be found in the Israeli legal system. The court held that counsel could not shift responsibility to a secretary or computer source and stressed the professional duty to verify the reliability and accuracy of all filed legal authorities.
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is the response recorded in the linked source; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- Thirty fabricated judgments in one brief is career-risk territory — enforce 100% citation sampling on any AI-drafted pleading.
Why this matter is tracked
In Gadban v. Israel Land Authority, the Haifa District Court ordered the claimant to produce more than thirty decisions cited in a response. Thirty-one of thirty-two citations could not be found in the Israeli legal system. The court held that counsel could not shift responsibility to a secretary or computer source and stressed the professional duty to verify the reliability and accuracy of all filed legal authorities.
Operational lesson
Thirty fabricated judgments in one brief is career-risk territory — enforce 100% citation sampling on any AI-drafted pleading.
Record details
CourtD. Haifa
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateAug 6, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeSee source
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | over 30 judgments that were not located in the legal information systems
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Gadban v. Israel Land Authority?
- In Gadban v. Israel Land Authority, the Haifa District Court ordered the claimant to produce more than thirty decisions cited in a response. Thirty-one of thirty-two citations could not be found in the Israeli legal system. The court held that counsel could not shift responsibility to a secretary or computer source and stressed the professional duty to verify the reliability and accuracy of all filed legal authorities.
- Why does Gadban v. Israel Land Authority matter for legal AI risk?
- Thirty fabricated judgments in one brief is career-risk territory — enforce 100% citation sampling on any AI-drafted pleading.
- What does the public record establish about Gadban v. Israel Land Authority?
- 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 Gadban v. Israel Land Authority 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.