So-and-so v. v. Anonymous
Decided 2025-05-26 · Outcome: AI use was noted by the lower court; no specific sanction for it · AI tool: Implied.
8 sanctioned cases on record in Israel where an attorney filed briefs, motions, or other pleadings containing AI-fabricated citations. Every entry below traces to a real, publicly reported court ruling. Data pulled daily from the underlying dockets and reporter databases — last update within 24 hours.
How courts in Israel have responded when a filing contained fabricated citations.
Filings in this jurisdiction most often cite the tool as “Implied” (the ruling describes an AI-generated brief but does not name a product).
Across 8 documented sanctions in Israel, the most common judicial response is Ai Use Was Noted By The Lower Court; No Specific Sanction For It (1 of 8). Of the 8 cases, 4 carried an explicit monetary penalty in the ruling text.
The rulings in this jurisdiction are consistent with the pattern Citation Safe tracks nationally: when a court identifies a fabricated citation, the sanction almost always follows within days, not weeks. The attorney of record — not the AI — is on the hook. Rule 11 (federal), state analogs, and inherent authority all support monetary sanctions, disgorgement, adverse-costs orders, and bar referrals independent of the tool that produced the citation.
Practical implication: any brief that reaches a docket in Israel needs a citation-existence check before filing. Existence is Layer 1 — the case has to be real. Layer 2 is quote accuracy (any quoted language must actually appear in the opinion). Layer 3 is propositional support (the opinion must actually stand for what you cite it for). Every documented sanction below failed at Layer 1 or Layer 2 — the kind of failure that is trivially catchable before filing and catastrophically visible after.
Sample penalty language from this jurisdiction: “50000 ILS”; “1200 ILS”; “5000 ILS”.
Decided 2025-05-26 · Outcome: AI use was noted by the lower court; no specific sanction for it · AI tool: Implied.
Decided 2025-05-26 · Outcome: Class action petition struck from the record; finding that Counsel was not fit to act in this case; Monetary sanctions · Penalty: 50000 ILS · AI tool: Tachdin.AI.
Decided 2025-05-25 · Outcome: Motion denied · AI tool: Implied.
Decided 2025-05-18 · Outcome: Request dismissed on the merits, monetary sanction · Penalty: 500 ILS · AI tool: Unidentified.
Decided 2025-05-14 · Outcome: No formal sanction; request by court for explanation; partial costs awarded against the defendant · Penalty: 1200 ILS · AI tool: Unidentified.
Decided 2025-05-12 · Outcome: No immediate sanction imposed; the matter was referred to the Legal Department of the Court Administration for review and potential action, including referral to the Ethics Committee of the Israel Bar Association · AI tool: Unidentified.
Decided 2025-05-07 · Outcome: No sanction imposed; judge criticized the error as a “disgrace”; granted partial relief to applicant · AI tool: Unidentified.
Decided 2025-04-29 · Outcome: Petition dismissed in limine; Plaintiff’s counsel ordered to pay ₪1,500 in personal costs to the state and ₪3,500 to the opposing party · Penalty: 5000 ILS · AI tool: Implied.
Other courts on the Citation Safe sanctions database with a similar volume of AI-hallucination rulings on record.
3 free checks. No signup. Every citation checked against the primary source — not another AI. $19 unlocks the full annotated report.
Informational only. Not legal advice. Data derived from public court records; corrections at /contact.