18.06.2026 17:50
A 25-year veteran attorney who used artificial intelligence support while preparing a defense petition in a case heard in Ankara found himself under investigation after the Supreme Court case and decision numbers in the petition turned out to be incorrect. After the errors were noticed during the hearing, the court notified the prosecutor's office and the Ankara Bar Association on the same day.
A 25-year veteran lawyer who utilized artificial intelligence while preparing a defense petition in a case in Ankara was reported to the prosecutor's office and the bar association after the citations of Supreme Court decisions included in the petition turned out to be erroneous. The lawyer stated that the decisions were not fabricated, but the case and decision numbers were written incorrectly.
The incident, which occurred in a trial in Ankara's Kızılcahamam district, has reignited debates about the use of artificial intelligence in the legal world. Lawyer E.Ç., a 25-year veteran who used AI assistance while preparing the defense petition, was reported to both the Ankara Bar Association and the Public Prosecutor's Office on the same day after errors in the citations of Supreme Court decisions included in the petition were revealed during the hearing.
AI FOUND THE DECISIONS, MIXED UP THE CITATIONS
In a statement made after the incident came to light, lawyer E.Ç. stated that the petition was prepared by three lawyers but the signature was his own. Expressing that no changes were made to the content of the text, E.Ç. said they only used artificial intelligence to support the defense with case law.
E.Ç. said, "The artificial intelligence added existing Supreme Court decisions, but it wrote the case and decision numbers of these decisions incorrectly. There was an error in the part we call the citation."
"THE DECISIONS WERE NOT FABRICATED"
The lawyer, explaining that during the hearing it was claimed that the decisions in question were fabricated, argued that an examination revealed the content of the decisions to be real. E.Ç. stated, "The decisions were not entirely fabricated. They were existing Supreme Court decisions in terms of content. However, the chamber numbers and decision citations were written incorrectly. The content was correct, the numbers were wrong."
REPORTED TO THE PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE AND BAR ASSOCIATION THE SAME DAY
Stating that the errors came to light when the opposing lawyer drew attention to them, E.Ç. said he wanted to investigate and make a statement, but the court initiated proceedings without waiting. The lawyer said, "During the hearing, it was claimed that these were fabricated decisions. Frankly, I was surprised at that moment as well. However, the court sent an investigation letter to both the Ankara Bar Association and the prosecutor's office on the same day."
DEBATE OVER AI IN LAW GROWS
The incident has also reignited debates about the reliability of using artificial intelligence systems in the legal field. Academic research reveals that large language models can generate non-existent or erroneous source citations in legal texts, underscoring the critical importance of subjecting AI outputs to expert review.