AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesHerzel Hagigi v. Official Receiver
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

Herzel Hagigi v. Official Receiver

Supreme Court · Dec 28, 2025

IsraelEditorial impact: mediumpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authoritybankruptcyMonetaryCase Dismissed
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The Israeli Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and imposed a monetary sanction of 5,000 ILS against the pro se litigant. The Court explicitly identified the inclusion of fabricated case law and statutory provisions, as well as embedded AI-generated prompts, as the basis for its criticism and the resulting costs order.

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Case Law || Fabricated: Legal Norm || Misrepresented: Case Law
Why it matters now
Israeli Supreme Court dismisses appeals with costs when fabricated authorities drive the argument.

Why this matter is tracked

In Herzel Hagigi v. Official Receiver, the Israeli Supreme Court dismissed an appeal filed by a pro se litigant regarding judicial disqualification in bankruptcy proceedings. The Court observed that the appellant's submission contained numerous fabricated legal authorities, including non-existent case law and fictitious statutory provisions. The Court further identified explicit text within the appellant's filing indicating the use of generative AI to draft the arguments. Emphasizing the duty of litigants to verify the accuracy of cited authorities, the Court dismissed the appeal as meritless and ordered the appellant to pay costs to the state in the amount of 5,000 ILS, noting that such procedural failures may independently justify the dismissal of an appeal.

Operational lesson

Israeli Supreme Court dismisses appeals with costs when fabricated authorities drive the argument.

Record details

CourtSupreme Court
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateDec 28, 2025
GE
AI toolGenerative AI (unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeAppeal dismissed; appellant ordered to pay 5,000 ILS in costs to the state.
Known amount₪5,000
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

admitted

The court identified text in the filing indicating AI-generated prompts.

Procedural posture

Appeal of a judicial disqualification decision dismissed by the Supreme Court of Israel.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law
  2. Fabricated: Legal Norm
  3. Misrepresented: Case Law

Questions this record answers

What happened in Herzel Hagigi v. Official Receiver?
The Israeli Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and imposed a monetary sanction of 5,000 ILS against the pro se litigant. The Court explicitly identified the inclusion of fabricated case law and statutory provisions, as well as embedded AI-generated prompts, as the basis for its criticism and the resulting costs order.
Why does Herzel Hagigi v. Official Receiver matter for legal AI risk?
Israeli Supreme Court dismisses appeals with costs when fabricated authorities drive the argument.
What does the public record establish about Herzel Hagigi v. Official Receiver?
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.
Which source supports this Herzel Hagigi v. Official Receiver 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.

Chen v. Goodmore Investments & TawaSupreme Court · May 1, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsJones v. Family Court at WhangareiSupreme Court · Feb 11, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsGummadi Usha Rani & Anr. v. Sure Mallikarjuna Rao & Anr.Supreme Court · Feb 27, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsОСОБА_1 v. Головне управління Пенсійного фонду України в Кіровоградській областіSupreme Court · Feb 3, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsОСОБА_1 v. Головне управління Пенсійного фонду України в Житомирській областіSupreme Court · Jan 15, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authorityHusni Al Qawasmi Association et al. v. Ziad Oweisat (Sharfi) et al.Supreme Court · Jan 1, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations