OpinionArtificial intelligence within the justice system: An efficient tool or a double-edged sword
Opinion
Artificial intelligence within the justice system: An efficient tool or a double-edged sword
Recent court rulings in Israel raise questions about the legal standing of using AI in judicial proceedings. Given the current regulatory gap and until clear guidelines are formulated, attorneys and companies must verify the authenticity of AI-generated outputs.
The rapid advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has profoundly impacted various fields, and the legal system is no exception. While AI can streamline processes and enhance productivity, it also poses complex legal, ethical, and practical dilemmas. Recent cases heard in Israeli courts highlight the challenges surrounding the integration of AI in the legal sphere, which could significantly influence the pursuit of justice.
One notable case reached the Haifa Magistrates' ("Shalom") Court in the form of an unusual motion. The plaintiff sued insurance companies for bodily injuries allegedly caused by traffic accidents. One of the insurance companies provided the appointed orthopedic expert with a document summarizing the plaintiff's medical records, generated by an AI program. The plaintiff asked the court to disqualify the document, claiming that the way it was generated might undermine the expert's judgment.
The court granted the request, emphasizing the concern that AI systems may create new, processed content tailored to the needs of the party using them, thus influencing the expert's judgment—subtly and possibly in a biased manner. Accordingly, the court ruled that such a document should not be presented, as it may direct the expert's attention in specific ways and compromise the expert's objectivity.
Fictitious Rulings Produced by AI
In another instance, an attorney submitted pleadings to the Jerusalem Magistrates' Court that cited rulings later discovered to be fabricated by an AI system—without any attempt to verify their authenticity.
The court ruled that both statutory law and the regulations of the Israel Bar Association require attorneys to ensure the truthfulness of their arguments. An attorney must refrain from presenting false information—whether deliberately or negligently—as such conduct undermines public trust and damages the integrity of the legal system. The court found that, through his actions, the attorney had breached his duties toward his client, opposing counsel, and the court itself.
In a prior case, an attorney filed a response with the Magistrates' Court in Nof HaGalil–Nazareth, citing a series of alleged quotations from Supreme Court decisions—quotations that never actually existed. Despite being given an opportunity by the court to prove the quotations' authenticity, the attorney was unable to confirm their accuracy, asserting instead that he had personally drafted the summaries based on his reading of the Supreme Court decisions.
The presiding judge noted the use of quotation marks, which implied an attempt to present precise, verbatim citations, and expressed strong disapproval of the attorney's conduct. The judge further remarked that the attorney omitted any explanation that the quotations were created by the AI system he was using. Viewing the matter in a severe light, the court referred it to the legal department of the Court Administration for possible further action. This case, too, underscores the risks of relying on unfounded legal information and highlights the attorney's personal duty to verify in advance the accuracy of any data presented to the court.
Mandatory Requirements of the Israel Bar Association
The above cases dovetail with similar incidents that took place outside Israel—in New York and Colorado—during June and October of last year. In those cases, attorneys relied on AI platforms when drafting pleadings, leading to the inclusion of fictitious court rulings. In response to such errors, the Israel Bar Association issued an advisory opinion in May 2024 on the use of AI in legal practice, warning that uncontrolled reliance on this technology could breach fundamental ethical obligations for attorneys, such as loyalty, transparency, and integrity.
The opinion lays out several binding requirements. Among them is the obligation to verify the reliability of data and avoid presenting misleading information. Attorneys must ensure that the information generated by AI tools is accurate, trustworthy, and properly verified before it is used in legal proceedings. They are strictly prohibited from incorporating AI-generated content that is deceptive or fabricated. Furthermore, in certain situations, attorneys must disclose to the court that the information was exclusively processed by an AI system.
Balancing Innovation and Responsibility
These recent events illustrate the danger of integrating AI technology into the legal arena without suitable monitoring mechanisms. The consequences extend beyond direct harm to the judicial process, eroding public trust in the legal system. Attorneys must therefore adopt these tools with caution and implement stringent review and control measures. Only by adhering to these guidelines can AI technology enhance the quality of legal proceedings and strengthen public trust without jeopardizing the principles of justice or the profession's fundamental values.
As for the courts, repeated instances of these issues may ultimately lead to judicial policies imposing significant costs on litigants who mislead the court or court-appointed experts, wasting the court's and the opposing party's valuable time by requiring verification of legal sources.
Adv. Igal Kolof is a senior partner in the Commercial Department at Weksler Bergman & Co.
