Israeli lawyer cited fabricated precedents generated by AI in court petition
An Israeli lawyer used an AI tool to draft a court petition and cited legal precedents that did not exist. The Supreme Court judge identified the fabricated citations and issued a public ruling warning the legal profession about the risks of unverified AI-generated content.
What happened
A lawyer representing a petitioner in a case before Israel's Supreme Court relied on an AI tool to draft a petition against a Sharia court decision on family law matters. The lawyer cited legal precedents and quotations that did not exist.
Judge Gila Kanfi-Steinitz noted in her ruling that the legal arguments presented were based on case citations that 'were never created,' indicating the lawyer used AI-generated information without verifying its authenticity. The judge stated it was 'highly probable' the lawyer used an AI tool.
Reported impact
The judge warned against irresponsible use of AI by lawyers drafting legal briefs, noting the risks posed by unchecked information fed into AI tools. The judge ordered the ruling published due to the growing trend of lawyers using AI tools.
Index analysis
The incident demonstrates how AI systems can generate plausible but entirely fabricated legal citations when used without human verification. The judge acknowledged that like any technology, AI presents disadvantages and risks that pose new challenges for the legal profession.
Governance controls
Judge Kanfi-Steinitz emphasized the professional responsibility of lawyers using AI in legal writing and cautioned against reliance on unverified information produced by these tools. The judge's public ruling and decision to publish it serve as a warning to the legal community about proper AI use.
Classification
Sources and evidence
This record was researched and written by the Index, based on the following original reporting.