Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Suki v. State of Israel
CD Lod · Jun 11, 2026
IsraelEditorial impact: lowfake citationstrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
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.
- 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.
Operational lesson
The source records a concrete authority-verification problem in a international proceeding and the tribunal’s documented response to it.
Record details
CourtCD Lod
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateJun 11, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeWarning
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Warning
Correction behavior
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?
- 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.
- 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.