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 95/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Mahala Association (מהל"ה) v. Clalit Health Services et al.
Israel · May 26, 2025
UNKNOWNEditorial impact: mediumfake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authorityadministrative
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Cited a non-existent Supreme Court case labeled 'Novartis' to support allowance of 'professional appendices'. Opposing party found no such case with that number or party; court found citations and quotes in the response were non-existent. Outcome: Class action petition struck from the record; finding that Counsel was not fit to act in this case; Monetary sanctions.
- Why the court cared
- The Court emphasized that the inclusion of hallucinated sources—regardless of intent—subverted proper legal process. Citations must be verified, and AI does not absolve attorneys from professional responsibility. The systemic risks posed by hallucinated filings necessitate a firm response going forward
- Why it matters now
- Paid 'Takdin AI' tool did not save counsel from 50,000 ILS fine, stricken class action, and personal disqualification; vetted tools demand human verification.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Cited a non-existent Supreme Court case labeled 'Novartis' to support allowance of 'professional appendices'. Opposing party found no such case with that number or party; court found citations and quotes in the response were non-existent. Outcome: Class action petition struck from the record; finding that Counsel was not fit to act in this case; Monetary sanctions.
AI Use
Counsel admitted that incorrect citations arose from reliance on an AI-enabled database called “Takdin AI.” The tool generated incorrect references to multiple Supreme Court decisions and falsely cited them as supporting key propositions. Counsel claimed the errors stemmed from time pressure and good faith, but the Court found the explanation inadequate.
Hallucination Details
At least 8 citations were found to be fictitious or unrelated to the argument, including:Afriedar v. Rosh HaAyin Municipality (Ra'ava 6774/19), which had been overturned and clearly marked as suchPhoenix v. Avital and Novartis decisions, which were either non-existent or misquotedReferences to non-existent sections of the Civil Procedure Regulations and the Class Actions LawThe hallucinated citations were used in response to motions to dismiss and as the basis for substantive legal claims in the class certification request.
Ruling/Sanction
The Court:Struck the class certification request due to cumulative procedural abuses and AI hallucinationsExplicitly ruled that the applicant's counsel is not suitable to serve as representative counsel in this proceeding or any similar one filed in its placeImposed monetary fines: (i) The Mahala Association was ordered to pay NIS 10,000 to each of the four respondents (totaling NIS 40,000); Counsel was ordered to pay personal costs: NIS 5,000 to the first respondent (Clalit) and NIS 5,000 to the State Treasury (totaling NIS 10,000).
Key Judicial Reasoning
The Court emphasized that the inclusion of hallucinated sources—regardless of intent—subverted proper legal process. Citations must be verified, and AI does not absolve attorneys from professional responsibility. The systemic risks posed by hallucinated filings necessitate a firm response going forward
Operational lesson
Paid 'Takdin AI' tool did not save counsel from 50,000 ILS fine, stricken class action, and personal disqualification; vetted tools demand human verification.
Record details
CourtIsrael
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateMay 26, 2025
TA
AI toolTachdin.AI
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeClass action petition struck from the record; finding that Counsel was not fit to act in this case; Monetary sanctions
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
Tachdin.AI is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Class action petition struck from the record; finding that Counsel was not fit to act in this case; Monetary sanctions
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
10 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Cited a non-existent Supreme Court case labeled 'Novartis' to support allowance of 'professional appendices'. Opposing party found no such case with that number or party; court found citations and quotes in the response were non-existent.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Quoted language purportedly from Phoenix that does not exist in the judgment; search on Nevo returned no such quote. Court held the response contained quotes that do not exist.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Misrepresented a proceeding as a class action 'Avital' and attributed paras 12 and 15; the case number corresponds to a small-claims vehicle-rental case and the quoted passages are absent. Court held the response included non-existent quotes.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Relied on 'Reprobate & Approbate' via a non-matching case number; the cited number is an administrative appeal about a tender and does not contain the claimed proposition.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited 'Hershkowitz' and a specific paragraph as supporting the use of 'professional appendices', but no such decision on that point exists in that file.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited a class action docket and paragraph 28 for the aphorism about fleeing to the personal/procedural; the number belongs to a different magistrate civil case and contains no such paragraph.
- Outdated Advice: Overturned Case Law | Relied on a Supreme Court decision later vacated by the High Court of Justice, without disclosing annulment; Nevo flags it as cancelled. Court noted the oversight despite claimed new QA procedures.
- Fabricated: Legal Norm | Quoted a non-existent text of Civil Procedure Regulation 74(a) (and even cited the wrong vintage) purporting to forbid filing separate interlocutory motions; court held such wording does not exist.
Show 2 additional discrepancies
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Misstated that Class Actions Law s.8(c) bars respondents from splitting preliminary motions; court clarified s.8(c) concerns certification authority, not motion-splitting.
- Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Asserted that a 'detailed update notice' was filed on 20.3.2025; docket review showed no such standalone filing—only an attachment to the amended application that drew no decision and was not served.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Mahala Association (מהל"ה) v. Clalit Health Services et al.?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Cited a non-existent Supreme Court case labeled 'Novartis' to support allowance of 'professional appendices'. Opposing party found no such case with that number or party; court found citations and quotes in the response were non-existent. Outcome: Class action petition struck from the record; finding that Counsel was not fit to act in this case; Monetary sanctions.
- Why does Mahala Association (מהל"ה) v. Clalit Health Services et al. matter for legal AI risk?
- Paid 'Takdin AI' tool did not save counsel from 50,000 ILS fine, stricken class action, and personal disqualification; vetted tools demand human verification.
- What does the public record establish about Mahala Association (מהל"ה) v. Clalit Health Services et al.?
- 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 Mahala Association (מהל"ה) v. Clalit Health Services et al. 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.