Suki v. State of Israel
CD Lod · Jun 11, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The court issued a formal warning to counsel for submitting fabricated legal authorities generated by AI. The judge emphasized that counsel's failure to verify AI-generated citations constitutes a breach of professional duties to the court and the legal system, though no personal monetary sanctions were imposed in this specific case.
- Why the court cared
- The linked source identifies the filing problem as: Counsel cited a case by number '195/18' which the court's search could not locate; the citation appears not to exist..
- Why it matters now
- The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a international proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.
Why this matter is tracked
In Suki v. State of Israel, the CD Lod addressed a Fabricated: Case Law in a lawyer filing. The linked source records that counsel cited a case by number '195/18' which the court's search could not locate; the citation appears not to exist. The recorded procedural consequence is Warning. The entry is dated 2026-06-11. It supports a focused account of the authority problem and does not establish an unrecorded AI tool, motive, or wider factual finding. The underlying source should be consulted for the complete filing and any later procedural developments.
The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a international proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The court identified the source of the citations as AI.
Appellate review of a criminal conviction and plea agreement, during which the court addressed the validity of counsel's legal citations.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
4 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited a case by number '195/18' which the court's search could not locate; the citation appears not to exist.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited 'ע"פ 7383/08' as supporting authority; court's research found no matching appellate decision under that citation and that the referenced file number corresponds to a different case type (דנ"פ), indicating a misattributed or fabricated citation.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel referred to 'מ"י נ' נקש' as precedent, but the court could not find any decision by that name or citation.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel referenced 'מדינת ישראל נ' פלוני' without a citation; the court treated the uncited, vague reference as an unhelpful and possibly fabricated authority provided by AI.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Suki v. State of Israel?
- The court issued a formal warning to counsel for submitting fabricated legal authorities generated by AI. The judge emphasized that counsel's failure to verify AI-generated citations constitutes a breach of professional duties to the court and the legal system, though no personal monetary sanctions were imposed in this specific case.
- Why does Suki v. State of Israel matter for legal AI risk?
- The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a international proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.
- What does the public record establish about Suki v. State of Israel?
- Limited to the linked source and the documented citation or quotation issue and stated disposition; no unrecorded tool, motive, or broader litigation facts are inferred.
- Which source supports this Suki v. State of Israel 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.