What was hallucinated

Fabricated: Case Law | Five references in the petition were to court judgments that do not exist in legal databases, discovered after the Court ordered production of the full decisions. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Fourteen references mismatched the cited case details (case number/proceeding type/parties/content), indicating inaccurate citation of existing decisions. || False Quotes: Case Law | At least 24 references included a quote or asserted support that had no connection to the cited decision, i.e., quotes not actually supported by the case. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Some quoted passages were presented as if from Supreme Court decisions though initial review showed they were not from this Court’s judgments. || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Certain arguments and quotations incorrectly described the law, presenting legislation or doctrine that does not match the applicable legal norms.

Details

AI UseThe petitioner’s counsel used an AI-based platform to draft the legal petition.Hallucination DetailsThe petition cited 36 fabricated or misquoted Israeli Supreme Court rulings. Five references were entirely fictional, 14 had mismatched case details, and 24 included invented quotes. Upon judicial inquiry, counsel admitted reliance on an unnamed website recommended by colleagues, without verifying the information's authenticity. The Court concluded that the errors were likely the product of generative AI.Ruling/SanctionThe High Court of Justice dismissed the petition on the merits, finding no grounds for intervention in the Sharia courts’ decisions. Despite the misconduct, no personal sanctions or fines were imposed on counsel, citing it as the first such incident to reach the High Court and adopting a lenient stance “far beyond the letter of the law.” However, the judgment was explicitly referred to the Court Administrator for system-wide attention.Key Judicial ReasoningThe Court issued a stern warning about the ethical duties of lawyers using AI tools, underscoring that professional obligations of diligence, verification, and truthfulness remain intact regardless of technological convenience. The Court suggested that in future cases, personal sanctions on attorneys might be appropriate to protect judicial integrity.

Sanction teardown · High Court, Israel · 2025-02-23

Plonit v. Sharia Court of Appeals

What happened

In High 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)

Five references in the petition were to court judgments that do not exist in legal databases, discovered after the Court ordered production of the full decisions.
Misrepresented (Case Law)

Fourteen references mismatched the cited case details (case number/proceeding type/parties/content), indicating inaccurate citation of existing decisions.
False Quotes (Case Law)

At least 24 references included a quote or asserted support that had no connection to the cited decision, i.e., quotes not actually supported by the case.
Misrepresented (Case Law)

Some quoted passages were presented as if from Supreme Court decisions though initial review showed they were not from this Court’s judgments.
Misrepresented (Legal Norm)

Certain arguments and quotations incorrectly described the law, presenting legislation or doctrine that does not match the applicable legal norms.

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

Petition Dismissed Outright; Warning re: Costs/Discipline.

Additional detail

AI UseThe petitioner’s counsel used an AI-based platform to draft the legal petition.Hallucination DetailsThe petition cited 36 fabricated or misquoted Israeli Supreme Court rulings. Five references were entirely fictional, 14 had mismatched case details, and 24 included invented quotes. Upon judicial inquiry, counsel admitted reliance on an unnamed website recommended by colleagues, without verifying the information's authenticity. The Court concluded that the errors were likely the product of generative AI.Ruling/SanctionThe High Court of Justice dismissed the petition on the merits, finding no grounds for intervention in the Sharia courts’ decisions. Despite the misconduct, no personal sanctions or fines were imposed on counsel, citing it as the first such incident to reach the High Court and adopting a lenient stance “far beyond the letter of the law.” However, the judgment was explicitly referred to the Court Administrator for system-wide attention.Key Judicial ReasoningThe Court issued a stern warning about the ethical duties of lawyers using AI tools, underscoring that professional obligations of diligence, verification, and truthfulness remain intact regardless of technological convenience. The Court suggested that in future cases, personal sanctions on attorneys might be appropriate to protect judicial integrity.

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/235/Anonymous_v._Sharia_Court_Supreme_Court_of_Israel_January_23_2025.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).