Tel Aviv Judge Rules Litigants Remain Responsible for AI-Drafted Filings
A Tel Aviv court ruled that litigants using AI to draft legal papers remain fully responsible for errors. Judge Oded Maor emphasized that disclaimers cannot excuse unverified generative content.
A Tel Aviv Administrative Affairs Court judge has ruled that litigants using artificial intelligence to draft legal documents cannot disclaim responsibility for the generated content. Presiding Judge Oded Maor addressed a growing trend of unrepresented litigants utilizing tools like ChatGPT to bypass language barriers and legal costs.
The case involved a 2002-born Russian citizen who entered Israel on a tourist visa in November 2022. Following its expiration, she sought asylum, claiming persecution in Russia due to her opposition to the government and support for Ukraine. After her application was rejected, she petitioned the Appeals Tribunal and subsequently sought leave to appeal to the district court, asking to avoid deportation.
The AI Dilemma in Court
Unable to speak Hebrew, the applicant drafted her legal filings using ChatGPT and added a disclaimer asking the court not to hold her accountable for any drafting or translation errors. Judge Maor noted that this phenomenon is becoming widespread as litigants turn to free or low-cost AI tools to formulate legal arguments.
"A warning label cannot turn a court submission into a document for which no one bears responsibility," Judge Maor wrote. He emphasized that artificial intelligence generates fluent and confident text, but legal arguments rely on verified facts, existing sources, and accountable individuals. Disclaiming responsibility forces the court and opposing counsel to sift through unverified assertions.
Tool, Not a Replacement
While acknowledging the immense challenges faced by unrepresented litigants who do not know the language, the judge clarified that AI is a helper rather than a replacement for human verification. "Accessibility does not mean exemption from liability. Artificial intelligence is an auxiliary tool, and it does not replace thought, verification, and responsibility," he stated.
Ultimately, the court dismissed the leave to appeal on procedural grounds and merits, noting among other things that the applicant had previously stated she faced no direct persecution and considered returning to Russia. No legal costs were imposed, and her underlying asylum appeal remains pending before the tribunal.
