Back to case record
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
CASE BRIEF / REVIEW PACKETAV-CB-18N1YVAGenerated September 10, 2026Evidence checked Sep 10, 2026
TRACKED PUBLIC MATTER

Suki v. State of Israel

CD Lod · Jun 11, 2026

Jurisdiction
international
Court
CD Lod
Record ID
suki-v-state-of-israel-2026-06-11
Observed outcome
The appeal was dismissed, and counsel was issued a formal warning regarding the use of AI in legal filings.
Known monetary consequence
₪0
ADVISOR READOUT

Why this matter warrants attention

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 decision-maker 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.

RECORDED ISSUES

Failure modes and consequences

  • Fake Citations
  • Trial
  • Warning
AI attribution
Explicitly Recorded
Recorded tool
AI (unspecified)
Known monetary consequence
₪0
Procedural posture
Appellate review of a criminal conviction and plea agreement, during which the court addressed the validity of counsel's legal citations.
PRIMARY SOURCE

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open underlying source

A recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.

EVIDENCE BOUNDARY

What this record does—and does not—establish

The court identified the source of the citations as AI.

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.

Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).

PRACTICAL REVIEW IMPLICATIONS

Controls suggested by the public record

  1. Check the cited authority, reporter reference, and pinpoint against the primary source before filing.
  2. Correct any unsupported citation promptly and preserve the verification record.
  3. Treat the listed consequence as case-specific rather than as a general rule about AI use.
EXPLAINABLE COMPARATORS

Related public matters

G.P. v. Jose Hernandez ArevaloW.D. Washington · Sep 8, 2026fake citations + trial · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Philippeaux v. United States, et al.S.D. New York · Sep 8, 2026fake citations + trial · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Santos v. Hoboken Public School District, et al.D. New Jersey · Sep 3, 2026fake citations + trial · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)