Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Was Nitzan 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 →

Nitzan v. Adar BaEmakim Properties Ltd.

Court
Magistrate Court
Jurisdiction
Israel
Decided
2024-08-13
AI tool
Implied
Outcome
Matter referred to the Legal Department of the Court Administration
Monetary penalty
None reported

What was hallucinated

Fabricated: Case Law | Quoted-ostensible passage claiming discussion of 'special reason' for extension in CA 9073/07, which the court found does not appear at all in that decision. || Fabricated: Case Law | Quoted-ostensible passage claiming discussion on cross-examining a court expert or sending clarification questions (including a second round) in case 3312/04; the court found no such discussion. || Fabricated: Case Law | Quoted-ostensible passage claiming discussion of extending time to submit clarification questions after an expert’s cross-examination in case 8493/06; the court found no such discussion. || Fabricated: Case Law | Quoted-ostensible passage claiming discussion on the importance of efficient management of planning-and-building cases in case 9656/05; the court found no such discussion. || False Quotes: Legal Norm | Misquoted legal norm: counsel placed quotation marks when citing Regulation 528 to the Civil Procedure Regulations, 1984, but the text was not an accurate quote. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Misrepresented parties: party names did not match the case number in the citation for CA 9073/07. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Misrepresented parties: party names did not match the case number in the citation for case 8493/06. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Misrepresented parties: party names did not match the case number in the citation for case 9656/05. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Misidentified judge: the cited reference listed an incorrect judge name for case 3312/04. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Incorrect decision dates were provided for the cited authorities; dates did not correspond to the actual decisions.

Details

In response to a motion by the defendant (Adar BaEmakim Properties Ltd.), the plaintiff's counsel submitted a response that included several purported quotations from Israeli Supreme Court decisions to support his arguments.Judge Daniel Kirs discovered that these citations were problematic: party names did not match case numbers, decision dates were incorrect, and one cited judge was incorrect. Crucially, the quoted text did not appear in the actual decisions, even when counsel was ordered to and did produce copies of the judgments he claimed to have cited.The judge considered the counsel's conduct to be more severe than simply misattributing a minority opinion; it was the presentation of a series of non-existent Supreme Court rulings. He explicitly noted that Adv. Faris did not claim these were fabrications by an AI tool that he failed to check (unlike the Mata v. Avianca case). Instead, Adv. Faris maintained that he himself had prepared these "summaries" after reading the cases.Due to the severity of this conduct—presenting fabricated Supreme Court "quotations" and misrepresenting their origin—the judge ordered the matter to be referred to the Legal Department of the Court Administration for consideration of further action.Separately, the defendant's underlying request (to send clarification questions to a court-appointed expert) was granted. The judge found that the "severe misconduct" of the plaintiff's counsel constituted a "special reason" to allow this, even though the defendant had previously waived the opportunity. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant NIS 600 for legal fees related to this part of the motion.(Summary by Gemini 2.5)

Sanction teardown · Magistrate Court, Israel · 2024-08-13

Nitzan v. Adar BaEmakim Properties Ltd.

What happened

In Magistrate Court, 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)
    Quoted-ostensible passage claiming discussion of 'special reason' for extension in CA 9073/07, which the court found does not appear at all in that decision.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Quoted-ostensible passage claiming discussion on cross-examining a court expert or sending clarification questions (including a second round) in case 3312/04; the court found no such discussion.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Quoted-ostensible passage claiming discussion of extending time to submit clarification questions after an expert’s cross-examination in case 8493/06; the court found no such discussion.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Quoted-ostensible passage claiming discussion on the importance of efficient management of planning-and-building cases in case 9656/05; the court found no such discussion.
  • False Quotes (Legal Norm)
    Misquoted legal norm: counsel placed quotation marks when citing Regulation 528 to the Civil Procedure Regulations, 1984, but the text was not an accurate quote.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Misrepresented parties: party names did not match the case number in the citation for CA 9073/07.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Misrepresented parties: party names did not match the case number in the citation for case 8493/06.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Misrepresented parties: party names did not match the case number in the citation for case 9656/05.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Misidentified judge: the cited reference listed an incorrect judge name for case 3312/04.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Incorrect decision dates were provided for the cited authorities; dates did not correspond to the actual decisions.

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

Matter referred to the Legal Department of the Court Administration

Additional detail

In response to a motion by the defendant (Adar BaEmakim Properties Ltd.), the plaintiff's counsel submitted a response that included several purported quotations from Israeli Supreme Court decisions to support his arguments.Judge Daniel Kirs discovered that these citations were problematic: party names did not match case numbers, decision dates were incorrect, and one cited judge was incorrect. Crucially, the quoted text did not appear in the actual decisions, even when counsel was ordered to and did produce copies of the judgments he claimed to have cited.The judge considered the counsel's conduct to be more severe than simply misattributing a minority opinion; it was the presentation of a series of non-existent Supreme Court rulings. He explicitly noted that Adv. Faris did not claim these were fabrications by an AI tool that he failed to check (unlike the Mata v. Avianca case). Instead, Adv. Faris maintained that he himself had prepared these "summaries" after reading the cases.Due to the severity of this conduct—presenting fabricated Supreme Court "quotations" and misrepresenting their origin—the judge ordered the matter to be referred to the Legal Department of the Court Administration for consideration of further action.Separately, the defendant's underlying request (to send clarification questions to a court-appointed expert) was granted. The judge found that the "severe misconduct" of the plaintiff's counsel constituted a "special reason" to allow this, even though the defendant had previously waived the opportunity. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant NIS 600 for legal fees related to this part of the motion.(Summary by Gemini 2.5)

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/463/Nitzan_v._Adar_BaEmakim_Properties_Ltd_Israel_August_13_2024.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/463/Nitzan_v._Adar_BaEmakim_Properties_Ltd_Israel_August_13_2024.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