Supreme Court Rulings on the Use of AI in Legal Documents
HCJ 38379-12-24 Jane Doe v. Sharia Court of Appeals, Jerusalem
Case Background
In this case, the petitioner’s attorney (appointed through legal aid) submitted a petition based on 36 “judgments” that never actually existed. Following an investigation by the court, it was revealed that the attorney had relied on a “website recommended by colleagues” without verifying the accuracy of the information.
This incident underscores the significant risk of uncontrolled use of AI tools, especially when dealing with sensitive legal matters.
The Court’s Position: Potential and Risks of AI
Recognition of Positive Potential
AI holds great potential for streamlining and improving legal tasks.
The technology can assist in various areas: enhancing pleadings, making the law more accessible, and expediting procedures.
“We must not throw the baby out with the bathwater” — proper and cautious use of technology should not be avoided.
Recognition of Risks
The phenomenon of “AI hallucinations” refers to the creation of false content presented as fact.
It can be difficult to detect fictitious content, even for experts.
There are also risks to client confidentiality and privacy.
Duties of Lawyers
Lawyers act as a protective barrier between the public and the legal system. This fundamental role requires them to exercise critical judgment, even when using advanced technological tools.
Core Duties
Responsible, cautious, and critical use of AI tools.
Deep understanding of the technology’s capabilities and limitations.
Continuous updates on the strengths and weaknesses of the tools used.
Explicit Prohibitions
Prohibition against submitting legal documents without thorough verification — accuracy and reliability must be ensured.
Prohibition against blind reliance on AI-generated outputs.
No exemption from professional responsibility — using technology does not absolve a lawyer of their core duties.
Violations of Duties
Submitting fictitious documents constitutes a violation of:
The duty of loyalty to the client (Section 54 of the Bar Association Law).
The duty to assist the court (same source).
The prohibition against deception (Rule 34(a) of the Ethics Rules).
The duty to uphold the dignity of the profession (Section 53 of the Bar Association Law).
Judicial Tools for Addressing the Issue
Courts have a duty to protect proceedings from forgeries and disruptions caused by technology.
Procedural Grounds
Summary dismissal of proceedings based on misleading pleadings.
Rejection due to insufficient legal foundation.
Striking out a statement of claim (Regulation 41 of the Civil Procedure Regulations).
Financial Sanctions
Imposing personal costs on the lawyer (Regulation 151(c)).
Costs should be imposed with caution and in special circumstances.
Requirement of prior warning and the right to a hearing.
Disciplinary Sanctions
Violations may constitute a disciplinary offense (Section 61 of the Bar Association Law).
Guidelines for the Judicial System
The judicial system must remain constantly vigilant and implement supervision and control mechanisms to ensure that AI use is responsible and transparent.
Duty to Act
In similar future cases, courts must exercise their authority.
Preserving the purity of legal proceedings is not merely a right but an obligation.
Balanced Approach
Recognition of the technology’s positive potential.
Preventing abuse while allowing proper use.
Key Message
The Supreme Court adopts a balanced approach: on one hand, recognizing the tremendous potential of AI to improve the legal system; on the other hand, demanding absolute professional accountability and the development of appropriate control mechanisms.
The main emphasis: Lawyers bear full responsibility for the content of the documents they submit, regardless of the tools used to prepare them.
