Mahala Association (מהל"ה) v. Clalit Health Services et al.

Ficha del Equipo Editorial a partir de la base mundial AI Hallucination Cases de Damien Charlotin. Verifica siempre en la fuente original.

El 26 de mayo de 2025, Israel conoció un asunto en el que un abogado se apoyó en la herramienta de IA Tachdin.AI y el expediente registró contenido alucinado.

Qué se alucinó

• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Cited a non-existent Supreme Court case labeled 'Novartis' to support allowance of 'professional appendices'. Opposing party found no such case with that number or party; court found citations and quotes in the response were non-existent.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Quoted language purportedly from Phoenix that does not exist in the judgment; search on Nevo returned no such quote. Court held the response contained quotes that do not exist.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Misrepresented a proceeding as a class action 'Avital' and attributed paras 12 and 15; the case number corresponds to a small-claims vehicle-rental case and the quoted passages are absent. Court held the response included non-existent quotes.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Relied on 'Reprobate & Approbate' via a non-matching case number; the cited number is an administrative appeal about a tender and does not contain the claimed proposition.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Cited 'Hershkowitz' and a specific paragraph as supporting the use of 'professional appendices', but no such decision on that point exists in that file.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Cited a class action docket and paragraph 28 for the aphorism about fleeing to the personal/procedural; the number belongs to a different magistrate civil case and contains no such paragraph.
• Información desactualizada de jurisprudencia revocada. Relied on a Supreme Court decision later vacated by the High Court of Justice, without disclosing annulment; Nevo flags it as cancelled. Court noted the oversight despite claimed new QA procedures.
• Fabricación de norma legal. Quoted a non-existent text of Civil Procedure Regulation 74(a) (and even cited the wrong vintage) purporting to forbid filing separate interlocutory motions; court held such wording does not exist.
• Tergiversación de norma legal. Misstated that Class Actions Law s.8(c) bars respondents from splitting preliminary motions; court clarified s.8(c) concerns certification authority, not motion-splitting.
• Fabricación de pruebas o escritos. Asserted that a 'detailed update notice' was filed on 20.3.2025; docket review showed no such standalone filing—only an attachment to the amended application that drew no decision and was not served.

Desenlace

Class action petition struck from the record; finding that Counsel was not fit to act in this case; Monetary sanctions. Sanción económica: 50000 ILS. Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/442/Mahala_Association_v._Clalit_Health_Services_et_al._Israel_May_22_2025.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

¿Conoces un caso que falte, o uno colombiano que debamos cubrir a fondo? Escríbenos.