Sonkin v. Roll Profile Ltd
Haifa Labour Court · Sep 29, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Haifa Labour Court
- Record ID
- sonkin-v-roll-profile-ltd-2025-09-29
- Observed outcome
- The court ordered the plaintiff to pay 2,000 ILS in costs to the defendant, regardless of the final merits of the case.
- Known monetary consequence
- ₪2,000
Why this matter warrants attention
The Haifa Labour Court sanctioned counsel for submitting twenty fabricated citations generated by AI. The court rejected counsel's medical justification for the error and ordered the plaintiff to pay 2,000 ILS in costs to the defendant, citing the significant burden placed on the defense to verify and address the non-existent authorities.
The court reasoned that the volume of twenty fabricated citations precluded a finding of good faith. It further noted that the defense was forced to expend significant effort to address these non-existent cases, and that counsel failed to disclose the error until after a specific court order, despite prior opportunities to do so.
Twenty fabricated citations draw four-figure fines in Israeli labour courts; volume of errors directly scales penalty.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Employment
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- AI (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- ₪2,000
- Procedural posture
- Decision on costs following the court's prior order regarding the plaintiff's failure to verify citations.
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
Counsel admitted to using AI for the pleading.
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.
- Escalate unresolved verification failures before filing and preserve the responsible reviewer's signoff record.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.