Sanction teardown · Family Court in Petah Tikva, Israel · 2025-07-03

Plonit et al. v. The Administrator General in the Tel Aviv District et al.

What happened

In Family Court in Petah Tikva, 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)
  Non-existent appellate case was cited to show executor's duty to avoid conflicts; court's database search found no such judgment.
• Fabricated (Case Law)
  Non-existent Supreme Court case was cited on executor obligations; court confirmed the citation could not be located in legal databases.
• Fabricated (Case Law)
  Non-existent Supreme Court case was cited regarding executor duties; court found no trace of the case.
• Fabricated (Case Law)
  Fabricated family court case (Haifa) cited to support neutrality and fiduciary duties; court found it does not exist.
• Fabricated (Case Law)
  Fabricated Tel Aviv family court case cited on executor conduct; court determined no such decision exists.
• Fabricated (Doctrinal Work)
  Non-existent scholarly source by Justice Barak on the Trusts Law was quoted for executor neutrality; court could not locate the work or the quote.
• Fabricated (Doctrinal Work)
  Fabricated citation to Barak's book 'Nehmanut' was used to support neutrality; court found no such source/quote.
• Fabricated (Doctrinal Work)
  Fabricated references to Shmuel Shilo's commentary on the Inheritance Law were cited; court found neither the specific quotes nor supporting pages.
• Fabricated (Doctrinal Work)
  Fabricated reference to Shaul Shochat's book on inheritance law was cited for executor duties; court found no such quote.
• Fabricated (Doctrinal Work)
  Fabricated citation to Michael Corinaldi's book on wills was used; court's search yielded no such source/quote.
• Fabricated (Doctrinal Work)
  Fabricated citation to Pinhas Shifman's Family Law treatise supporting neutrality was included; court found no such reference.

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

Monetary Penalty (monetary penalty: 7000 ILS.)

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/657/ploni106.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).