The Supreme Court dismissed a petition last week after finding that it referenced nonexistent legal precedents generated by artificial intelligence (AI). The court also ordered the petitioner to cover 7,000 shekels ($1,900) in legal costs.
The incident marks the second case in a week in which the court has addressed the misuse of AI in legal filings. Justice Noam Sohlberg warned that this could signal a growing trend.
“This tool holds great promise,” he wrote in his ruling, “but its pitfalls must be avoided. We must embrace its essence and discard its shell. While the court has been patient, given the novelty of the issue, that patience is not unlimited. From now on, legal professionals will be expected to exercise full caution and judicial responses will adjust accordingly.”
The petition was filed in January by an Israeli animal rights NGO against the Agriculture Ministry. It sought an order requiring the ministry to justify its decision to extend a temporary regulation allowing the euthanasia of stray dogs.
The regulation, first introduced due to the large number of stray dogs entering Israel from Gaza after the October 7 attack and the destruction of the border fence, was extended for another year. The petition argued that the extension was disproportionate and violated Israel’s animal welfare laws, suggesting alternative solutions.
However, during the proceedings, it became evident that the petitioner had cited judicial precedents that did not exist and could not be found in Israel’s official court records. Justice Sohlberg ruled that “the petitioner was asked to respond solely to this grave issue and to provide copies of all the rulings referenced in the petition.”
“My own attempt to locate these so-called ‘precedents’ yielded nothing. The petitioner failed to provide an explanation or the requested documents,” he added.
The organization also asked the court not to impose legal fees, citing financial difficulties. However, Sohlberg dismissed the request, saying: “The petitioner offered no legal sources to support its case, leaving only one conclusion.”
He further stressed that “courts cannot accept legal filings containing false claims of any kind, including references to nonexistent legal sources. The rise of AI tools — while undoubtedly beneficial — also carries risks. Those who fail to use these tools with proper caution may unknowingly submit filings containing serious legal flaws.”
Get the Ynetnews app on your smartphone: Google Play: https://bit.ly/4eJ37pE | Apple App Store: https://bit.ly/3ZL7iNv
Sohlberg rejected the notion that AI-generated misinformation should be treated differently from other forms of deception. “Petitioners are required to come before this court with clean hands and honest intent,” he wrote. “Presenting fictitious references that could mislead the court is unacceptable and warrants outright dismissal.”
While acknowledging the association’s commitment to animal welfare, he ruled that “as important as its cause may be, no party is exempt from the fundamental legal obligations required in court proceedings.”
The three-judge panel—Sohlberg, David Mintz and Yosef Elron — unanimously dismissed the petition and ordered the association to cover the Agriculture Ministry’s legal costs.
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court addressed a similar case in which an attorney representing a woman in a divorce dispute cited fabricated rulings generated by AI. Justice Gila Canfy-Steinitz ruled that while the attorney did not disclose the source of the erroneous citations, the inconsistencies strongly suggested the use of AI.
The court ultimately reviewed the case on its merits to avoid harming the petitioner but dismissed the claims based on the unreliable legal references. “The AI-generated response seemed so convincing to the attorney that she did not bother verifying its accuracy,” Canfy-Steinitz wrote.
Attorney Ariel Dubinsky, an expert in intellectual property and AI law who was not involved in the case, said the ruling marked a significant shift. “Unlike the previous case, where the court refrained from imposing financial penalties, this time the Supreme Court ordered legal costs of 7,000 shekels, sending a clear warning to the legal community,” he said.
“The message is clear: the grace period for AI-related mistakes is over. The judicial system is moving from an educational approach to full accountability. Lawyers must thoroughly verify their legal sources, as the consequences of relying on unverified AI-generated content are becoming increasingly tangible.”