Nitzan v. Adar BaEmakim Properties Ltd.

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

El 13 de agosto de 2024, Magistrate Court (Israel) conoció un asunto en el que un abogado se apoyó en una herramienta de IA generativa (no identificada en la decisión) y el expediente registró contenido alucinado.

Qué se alucinó

• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Quoted-ostensible passage claiming discussion of 'special reason' for extension in CA 9073/07, which the court found does not appear at all in that decision.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Quoted-ostensible passage claiming discussion on cross-examining a court expert or sending clarification questions (including a second round) in case 3312/04; the court found no such discussion.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Quoted-ostensible passage claiming discussion of extending time to submit clarification questions after an expert’s cross-examination in case 8493/06; the court found no such discussion.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Quoted-ostensible passage claiming discussion on the importance of efficient management of planning-and-building cases in case 9656/05; the court found no such discussion.
• Citas falsas de norma legal. Misquoted legal norm: counsel placed quotation marks when citing Regulation 528 to the Civil Procedure Regulations, 1984, but the text was not an accurate quote.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Misrepresented parties: party names did not match the case number in the citation for CA 9073/07.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Misrepresented parties: party names did not match the case number in the citation for case 8493/06.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Misrepresented parties: party names did not match the case number in the citation for case 9656/05.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Misidentified judge: the cited reference listed an incorrect judge name for case 3312/04.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Incorrect decision dates were provided for the cited authorities; dates did not correspond to the actual decisions.

Desenlace

Matter referred to the Legal Department of the Court Administration. Sanción profesional: Yes.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/463/Nitzan_v._Adar_BaEmakim_Properties_Ltd_Israel_August_13_2024.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

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