So-and-so v. v. Anonymous
Israel · May 26, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Israel
- Record ID
- so-and-so-v-v-anonymous-2025-05-26
- Observed outcome
- The motion to correct the transcript was denied, and the request for leave to appeal was rejected. No specific sanction was imposed for the AI-generated hallucinations.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court identified the use of fabricated case law, which it attributed to the uncontrolled use of AI. While the court explicitly criticized this conduct, it did not impose a specific sanction, as the underlying motion was denied due to procedural delays and a lack of substantive evidence regarding the alleged transcript errors.
The court reasoned that the applicant's motion was procedurally barred by significant delay and failed to identify specific, material errors in the transcript. Furthermore, the court noted that the applicant's reliance on non-existent case law demonstrated an uncontrolled use of AI, which the court deemed a serious matter requiring judicial response, though it did not warrant a separate sanction in this specific procedural context.
Israeli courts flagged fabricated cites but declined sanctions this time; next uncontrolled AI use will draw discipline under Supreme Court guidance.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fabricated: Case Law
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm
- Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Family
- AI attribution
- Explicitly Recorded
- Recorded tool
- AI (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- The District Court denied the applicant's request for leave to appeal a Family Court decision that had rejected a motion to correct hearing transcripts.
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 explicitly referenced the use of artificial intelligence technology.
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 and accuracy of every cited authority through official legal databases.
- Ensure that all motions to correct transcripts are filed within the statutory time limits to avoid procedural dismissal.
- Maintain rigorous human oversight of all AI-generated submissions to prevent the inclusion of fabricated case law.
- Provide specific, evidence-based justifications for any requested transcript corrections rather than relying on general allegations of tampering.