Facts
In a case before a civil court of first instance in the Kızılcahamam district of Ankara, a lawyer of 25 years' standing used AI to support a defence petition and added Court of Cassation decisions to it. According to the lawyer's account to the press, the AI tool had attached incorrect chamber, docket and decision numbers to quotations whose content came from genuine Court of Cassation rulings. Opposing counsel argued at the hearing that the decisions were fabricated. The matter was reported in June 2026; the sources do not give the date of the petition or the hearing.
What was the legal question in Yapay zekâ ile hazırlanan dilekçede hatalı Yargıtay künyeleri?
Is filing incorrect case citations produced by an AI tool enough to justify disciplinary and criminal proceedings against the lawyer? The concrete question for the court was how to respond when the decisions cited in the petition could not be verified on UYAP, the national judicial network. Whether an unintentional error can amount to an offence, and how such referrals affect the right of defence, remain disputed.
What did the Kızılcahamam Civil Court of First Instance decide?
According to press reports and the lawyer's own account, the court found that the Court of Cassation decisions cited in the petition could not be found on UYAP in the form given and that the numbers appeared to have been written at random. The same day it wrote to the Ankara Bar Association and the public prosecutor's office asking for action against the lawyer under the Turkish Criminal Code. The lawyer has given a statement to prosecutors; according to the reports, no specific offence was identified. The outcome of the bar's disciplinary process and the criminal investigation is not yet known. The court's letter has not been published.
Why does Yapay zekâ ile hazırlanan dilekçede hatalı Yargıtay künyeleri matter?
The case shows that in Türkiye a court may refer AI-related citation errors directly to disciplinary and criminal authorities. Lawyers' rights advocates have described the use of criminal proceedings for an error lacking intent as pressure on the defence. The bar's and prosecutors' decisions will indicate what level of sanction applies in similar cases.
The same question elsewhere
What follows from filing case law that AI made up?
The lawyers and their firm were sanctioned with a $5,000 penalty.
Mata v. Avianca, Inc.United Kingdom · 2025Referred to regulatorsThe lawyers were referred to their regulators; the court stressed the duty to verify.
R (Ayinde) v London Borough of Haringey; Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank QPSC and QNB Capital LLCThe court wrote the same day; the disciplinary and criminal outcome is not yet known.
— this decisionThe court stated in its judgment that unverified precedents relied on did not exist.
Company A (anonymised) invalidation action