Back to case record
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
CASE BRIEF / REVIEW PACKETAV-CB-0RSGRRRGenerated September 10, 2026Evidence checked Sep 10, 2026
TRACKED PUBLIC MATTER

Zlatin v. Assayag et al

Jerusalem Magistrate's Court · Jul 11, 2025

Jurisdiction
international
Court
Jerusalem Magistrate's Court
Record ID
zlatin-v-assayag-et-al-2025-07-11
Observed outcome
The court ordered the plaintiff to pay 20,000 ILS in costs to the defendants and 5,000 ILS to the state treasury.
Known monetary consequence
₪25,000
ADVISOR READOUT

Why this matter warrants attention

The court imposed a monetary penalty on the plaintiff, ordering payment of 20,000 ILS in costs to the defendants and 5,000 ILS to the state treasury, specifically due to the submission of a closing brief containing fabricated case law and statutes.

Why the decision-maker cared

The court reasoned that the plaintiff's inclusion of non-existent citations caused a waste of time and resources for the defendants and the court. It characterized the submission as showing contempt and severity, justifying exemplary costs.

Why it matters now

Filing an AI-generated draft with placeholder prompts triggers exemplary costs; require a final-review checklist before submission.

RECORDED ISSUES

Failure modes and consequences

  • Fake Citations
  • Contract
  • Trial
  • Monetary
AI attribution
Not Established
Recorded tool
Unidentified
Known monetary consequence
₪25,000
Procedural posture
Final judgment in a civil contract dispute before the Jerusalem Magistrate's Court.
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 current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.

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).

PRACTICAL REVIEW IMPLICATIONS

Controls suggested by the public record

  1. Implement a mandatory final-review checklist to ensure all citations are verified against official legal databases before filing.
  2. Prohibit the filing of documents containing instructional placeholders or template-generated text.
  3. Establish a verification protocol for all AI-assisted drafting to confirm the existence and accuracy of cited statutes and case law.