Nitzan v. Adar BaEmakim Properties Ltd.
Magistrate Court · Aug 13, 2024
What happened in this matter?
The court referred the plaintiff's counsel to the Legal Department of the Court Administration for disciplinary consideration after counsel presented fabricated Supreme Court quotations in a court filing. The judge explicitly rejected counsel's claim that these were personal summaries, noting the severity of misrepresenting non-existent authority to the court.
- Why the court cared
- The court reasoned that the presentation of non-existent Supreme Court rulings, coupled with counsel's insistence that he personally prepared these summaries, constituted severe misconduct. The court distinguished this from cases involving unverified AI-generated output, as counsel claimed personal authorship of the fabrications. This conduct was deemed a 'special reason' to grant the defendant's request to submit clarification questions to the expert despite a prior waiver.
- Why it matters now
- Claiming you wrote the fake summaries yourself is worse than blaming AI — judges escalate for misrepresenting origin.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Quoted-ostensible passage claiming discussion of 'special reason' for extension in CA 9073/07, which the court found does not appear at all in that decision. Outcome: Matter referred to the Legal Department of the Court Administration. In response to a motion by the defendant (Adar BaEmakim Properties Ltd.), the plaintiff's counsel submitted a response that included several purported quotations from Israeli Supreme Court decisions to support his arguments.Judge Daniel Kirs discovered that these citations were problematic: party names did not match case numbers, decision dates were incorrect, and one cited judge was incorrect. Crucially, the quoted text did not appear in the actual decisions, even when counsel was ordered to and did produce copies of the judgments he claimed to have cited.The judge considered the counsel's conduct to be more severe than simply misattributing a minority opinion; it was the presentation of a series of non-existent Supreme Court rulings. He explicitly noted that Adv. Faris did not claim these were fabrications by an AI tool that he failed to check (unlike the Mata v. Avianca case). Instead, Adv. Faris maintained that he himself had prepared these "summaries" after reading the cases.Due to the severity of this conduct—presenting fabricated Supreme Court "quotations" and misrepresenting their origin—the judge ordered the matter to be referred to the Legal Department of the Court Administration for consideration of further action.Separately, the defendant's underlying request (to send clarification questions to a court-appointed expert) was granted. The judge found that the "severe misconduct" of the plaintiff's counsel constituted a "special reason" to allow this, even though the defendant had previously waived the opportunity. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant NIS 600 for legal fees related to this part of the motion.(Summary by Gemini 2.5)
Claiming you wrote the fake summaries yourself is worse than blaming AI — judges escalate for misrepresenting origin.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The court referenced AI as a potential source of fabrications, though counsel denied using it.
The court issued a decision on a defendant's motion for reconsideration or, alternatively, to send clarification questions to a court-appointed expert, while simultaneously addressing the plaintiff's counsel's submission of fabricated legal authorities.
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 | Quoted-ostensible passage claiming discussion of 'special reason' for extension in CA 9073/07, which the court found does not appear at all in that decision.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Quoted-ostensible passage claiming discussion on cross-examining a court expert or sending clarification questions (including a second round) in case 3312/04; the court found no such discussion.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Quoted-ostensible passage claiming discussion of extending time to submit clarification questions after an expert’s cross-examination in case 8493/06; the court found no such discussion.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Quoted-ostensible passage claiming discussion on the importance of efficient management of planning-and-building cases in case 9656/05; the court found no such discussion.
- False Quotes: Legal Norm | Misquoted legal norm: counsel placed quotation marks when citing Regulation 528 to the Civil Procedure Regulations, 1984, but the text was not an accurate quote.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Misrepresented parties: party names did not match the case number in the citation for CA 9073/07.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Misrepresented parties: party names did not match the case number in the citation for case 8493/06.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Misrepresented parties: party names did not match the case number in the citation for case 9656/05.
Show 2 additional discrepancies
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Misidentified judge: the cited reference listed an incorrect judge name for case 3312/04.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Incorrect decision dates were provided for the cited authorities; dates did not correspond to the actual decisions.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Nitzan v. Adar BaEmakim Properties Ltd.?
- The court referred the plaintiff's counsel to the Legal Department of the Court Administration for disciplinary consideration after counsel presented fabricated Supreme Court quotations in a court filing. The judge explicitly rejected counsel's claim that these were personal summaries, noting the severity of misrepresenting non-existent authority to the court.
- Why does Nitzan v. Adar BaEmakim Properties Ltd. matter for legal AI risk?
- Claiming you wrote the fake summaries yourself is worse than blaming AI — judges escalate for misrepresenting origin.
- What does the public record establish about Nitzan v. Adar BaEmakim Properties Ltd.?
- 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 Nitzan v. Adar BaEmakim Properties Ltd. 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.