Nitzan v. Adar BaEmakim Properties Ltd.
Magistrate Court · Aug 13, 2024
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Magistrate Court
- Record ID
- nitzan-v-adar-baemakim-properties-ltd-2024-08-13
- Observed outcome
- The court granted the defendant's request to send clarification questions to the expert, ordered the plaintiff to pay NIS 600 in legal fees, and referred the plaintiff's counsel to the Legal Department of the Court Administration for investigation of his conduct.
- Known monetary consequence
- NIS 600
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
Claiming you wrote the fake summaries yourself is worse than blaming AI — judges escalate for misrepresenting origin.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- Tort
- Trial
- Professional
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- NIS 600
- Procedural posture
- 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.
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 court referenced AI as a potential source of fabrications, though counsel denied using it.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Compare every quoted passage and pincite directly with the underlying opinion or filing.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Escalate unresolved verification failures before filing and preserve the responsible reviewer's signoff record.