Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Was So-and-so on the other side of your case?

Check their next brief before they file — Opposition Check verifies every citation in a filed brief for $49, no signup. Get Opposition Check →

So-and-so v. v. Anonymous

Court
Israel
Jurisdiction
Israel
Decided
2025-05-26
AI tool
Implied
Outcome
AI use was noted by the lower court; no specific sanction for it
Monetary penalty
None reported

What was hallucinated

Fabricated: Case Law | Applicant cited non-existent case law; the court found some referenced judgments "do not exist at all" and warned about uncontrolled AI use. || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Applicant claimed Courts Law s.68 allows protocol corrections "at any time" before final decision; the court held the statute imposes a 10-day limit from service. || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Applicant relied on Courts Law s.81 (correction of judgments) to amend a protocol; the court held s.81 is inapplicable to protocol corrections. || Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | Applicant alleged "manual intervention" and tampering in the transcript causing omissions and distortions; the court found no specific or material discrepancies and deemed the claim unsupported.

Details

The Family Court noted that one motion cited case law that does "not exist at all". This raised "concern about uncontrolled use of artificial intelligence technology," referencing recent Supreme Court guidance on the need for an appropriate judicial response to such instances.On appeal, the District Court acknowledged the Family Court's finding regarding the non-existent case law and the suspicion of AI use. However, like the Family Court, it did not impose a separate sanction for this, as the appeal was dismissed primarily on the grounds of the delay and lack of merit concerning the protocol correction itself

Sanction teardown · Israel, Israel · 2025-05-26

So-and-so v. v. Anonymous

What happened

In Israel, Israel, a filing relied on an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool to help draft legal argument. The court identified the following problems with the citations in that filing:

  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Applicant cited non-existent case law; the court found some referenced judgments "do not exist at all" and warned about uncontrolled AI use.
  • Misrepresented (Legal Norm)
    Applicant claimed Courts Law s.68 allows protocol corrections "at any time" before final decision; the court held the statute imposes a 10-day limit from service.
  • Misrepresented (Legal Norm)
    Applicant relied on Courts Law s.81 (correction of judgments) to amend a protocol; the court held s.81 is inapplicable to protocol corrections.
  • Misrepresented (Exhibits & Submissions)
    Applicant alleged "manual intervention" and tampering in the transcript causing omissions and distortions; the court found no specific or material discrepancies and deemed the claim unsupported.

Which AI tool

an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool. Note: Charlotin's public database records tool attribution only where a court order, brief, or reporting on the matter states it explicitly; "unidentified" or "implied" means the record indicates AI use but does not name a specific product — we do not guess.

Outcome

AI use was noted by the lower court; no specific sanction for it

Additional detail

The Family Court noted that one motion cited case law that does "not exist at all". This raised "concern about uncontrolled use of artificial intelligence technology," referencing recent Supreme Court guidance on the need for an appropriate judicial response to such instances.On appeal, the District Court acknowledged the Family Court's finding regarding the non-existent case law and the suspicion of AI use. However, like the Family Court, it did not impose a separate sanction for this, as the appeal was dismissed primarily on the grounds of the delay and lack of merit concerning the protocol correction itself

How Citation Safe would have caught this

Citation Safe runs three deterministic layers before a brief is filed: (1) does the citation exist against CourtListener's database of published opinions, (2) if quoted, does that exact language appear in the source, (3) does the cited case actually support the proposition it is cited for. Fabricated case citations fail Layer 1. Fabricated or misattributed quotations fail Layer 2 even when the underlying case is real. Misrepresented holdings — a real case cited for a proposition it does not support — are the target of Layer 3. None of these checks involve asking another language model whether the citation looks right; they are lookups and text-matches against the actual source, which is why a hallucinated citation has to survive a direct lookup against the authoritative source — not another model's opinion — to earn a VERIFIED stamp; our measured false-verify rate is published live at /quality.

Check a brief before you file it → · See our live false-verify rate

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/456/So-and-so_v._Anonymous_Isreal_26_May_2025.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/456/So-and-so_v._Anonymous_Isreal_26_May_2025.pdf

Don’t be the next case in this database.

Citation Safe checks every citation against primary sources before it reaches a filing.

Try the free checkerBack to database

On the opposing side of their next motion?

Check their next brief through the same engine that would have caught this filing — $49, no signup, full annotated report you can attach to your Rule 11 or sanctions motion.

Open Opposition Check — $49Sanctions-motion template