Uncontrolled Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Legal Process
- The case law has already discussed at length cases of reliance on non-existent legal sources, or the citation of quotes that did not exist and were not created in the framework of pleadings, due to the 'hallucinations' of artificial intelligence. As my colleague, Justice Kanfi-Steinitz, clarified:
"A lawyer who submits a court statement whose content is fabricated, while relying on non-existent references, is defrauding his duties towards the litigant he represents; towards the court; towards the opposing party; and towards the legal profession" (The Anonymous case, para. 15; for more information, see ibid., paragraphs 16-18; see also: High Court of Justice 23602-01-25 The Association for the Advancement of Dog Rights v. Minister of Agriculture, paragraphs 9-11 [Nevo] (February 28, 2025) (hereinafter: the Association for the Advancement of Dog Rights)).
Such conduct is a serious deception on the part of both the court and the opposing party, and it easily amounts to abuse of court proceedings. Let me clarify that it is not the use of artificial intelligence that is wrong, but rather its use without appropriate control, which verifies and verifies the correctness of its products.
- In the case of a certain woman, the court noted the broad basket of tools available to it when it came to dealing with misleading court rulings such as this (see ibid., paragraphs 19-25; and for concrete application, see: The Association for the Advancement of Dog Rights, paragraphs 12-14). In our case, in particular in view of the fact that the dispute on its merits has already been resolved, I am of the opinion that the appropriate tool is a ruling on legal costs; and that they must be at an increased rate. The main reason for this is that we are dealing only with a breach of the general duty of good faith, or of the slightly abstract duty not to abuse legal proceedings; Rather, in violation of a clear and concrete procedural duty derived from those general duties, and which has already been explicitly established in the case law of this Court – the duty not to submit erroneous court documents, including those based on the 'hallucinations' of artificial intelligence. Thus, this is a breach of duty that was known to be ex-ante, and hence, the municipality knew – and unfortunately, should have known – that it was violating it.
- This state of affairs may indicate that the said duty has not yet been sufficiently internalized; perhaps it is even perceived as 'toothless' (it is not superfluous to note in this context that both in the case of a certain woman and in the case of the Association for the Advancement of Dog Rights, this Court adopted an approach beyond the letter of the law, and refrained from imposing expenses, or imposing expenses at a low rate, in view of the novelty of the law). This is even more acute in view of the fact that the Municipality continued its faulty conduct in this area, both in the proceedings in the District Court and in the present proceeding, even after the appellant had explicitly pointed out it. Regarding the Association for the Advancement of Dog Rights, I noted that "even if this court has been patient and moderate on the issue so far, in light of the fact that this is a new phenomenon , there will never be immunity. From now on, those engaged in the work will be held as "permitted and standing"; The judicial response will change accordingly" (ibid., para. 19). After about a year, it seems to me that the time to exercise patience and understanding with erroneous court rulings, which stem from the uncontrolled use of artificial intelligence in the framework of legal proceedings, has passed.
- As part of our duty to maintain the nature and fairness of the court proceedings, we must ensure that the incentive system is 'aligned', and that misuse of those proceedings is not 'profitable' (see, for example: Civil Appeals Authority 8921/20 SKS Holdings LLC Oren, paragraphs 33-35 [Nevo] (May 13, 2021); Civil Appeal Authority 4625/22 Nava v. Katz, para. 47 [Nevo] (January 10, 2023)). The submission of misleading court documents, which include a variety of references that lead the other parties, as well as the court, time after time, in a dead-end manner, therefore requires an appropriate judicial response; Both for reasons of deterrence and direction of conduct, and for reasons of procedural fairness. It is therefore not possible to avoid in our case an award of expenses at a considerable rate.
- This is fine in general, but it is even more valid in our case, when we are dealing with a municipality, which has an increased duty of procedural fairness – stronger than that which applies to a private citizen. Indeed, "we are not talking about a private litigant, who is also obligated in good faith in his conduct, but rather of an authority, whose duty of fairness is a foundation of the institution, otherwise 'one would have swallowed up his neighbor alive' (Mishna Avot 3:2)" (High Court of Justice 4284/08 Klepner v. Israel Postal Company Ltd., para. 36 [Nevo] (2010), and see also the multitude of references therein)). This obligation, "is clear [...] like the sun at noon, to the point that it does not require references" (Civil Appeals Authority 470/08 Carmel Desalination v. State of Israel, para. 9 [Nevo] (March 4, 2010)); and it is imposed on local authorities, like any other administrative authority (see, for example: Additional Administrative Hearing 5519/15 Younes v. Mei HaGalil Regional Water and Sewage Corporation Ltd., para. 20 [Nevo] (December 17, 2019); Application for Administrative Leave to Appeal 6878/17 Rishon LeZion Municipality v. Nahum, para. 44 [Nevo] (May 6, 2020)). If this is the case, it is clear that the conduct of the municipality in this matter is extremely serious.
- 00Therefore, as it appears from the aforesaid, the uncontrolled use made by the Municipality of Artificial Intelligence in the framework of the legal proceedings, a use that amounts to lawlessness in this case, is grave, unacceptable; the same applies to every litigant, and all the more so in view of the increased duty of fairness that applies to the administrative authorities. However, as far as Didi is concerned, even these matters are dwarfed in their severity, in comparison to the conduct of the municipality in its direct relations with the appellant. I will explain what I have said.
0