Is the era of 'Artificial Intelligence' beginning in the judiciary?

Artificial intelligence has become one of the most discussed topics in the legal world over the past few years. Initially seen as a technology used by lawyers when drafting petitions, researching case law or preparing contract drafts, artificial intelligence has now begun to appear on the agenda of judicial proceedings as well. Two consecutive developments in the Turkish judiciary in recent days have moved this debate from theory into practice.

In the first development, a commercial court explicitly stated in its reasoned decision that it had made use of artificial intelligence. The court said it benefited from AI support particularly for examining foreign legal sources, conducting comparative law research and accessing technical information more quickly. At the same time, it also emphasized that the legal assessment and the final decision belonged entirely to the court. In this respect, the most striking aspect of the decision was not so much that artificial intelligence had been used, but that this was disclosed transparently in the reasoned decision.

A second decision that became public shortly afterward drew attention for a different reason. In a compensation case arising from a traffic accident, the expert examined the vehicle photographs submitted to the case file using AI-supported analysis programs and concluded that there was no damage to the vehicle. The court also based its ruling on this report and decided to dismiss the case. Thus, for the first time in the Turkish judiciary, an AI-supported technical assessment was seen to be one of the grounds for a court decision.

Both examples show that artificial intelligence is no longer merely a tool used in law offices or academic studies; it has begun to find a place for itself at different stages of judicial proceedings as well.

In fact, the relationship between law and technology is not new. The implementation of UYAP, the acceptance of electronic signatures, the spread of the electronic notification system and the SEGBİS application were also the subject of similar debates in their early periods. Today, however, these are accepted as part of the ordinary functioning of the judiciary. For this reason, it would not be surprising for artificial intelligence to find a greater place in judicial practice over time.

However, there is an important feature that distinguishes artificial intelligence from other technological tools. Electronic notification transmits a document, UYAP records a file, and an electronic signature provides identity verification. Artificial intelligence, unlike these, analyzes data, compares similar examples and can present the user with certain results or recommendations. This is precisely why the role of artificial intelligence in judicial processes requires a more comprehensive assessment than other digital applications.

It is particularly noteworthy that in the first decision, the court explicitly stated its use of artificial intelligence in its reasoned decision. This approach shows that transparently setting out the technology used, rather than concealing it, is important for trust in the judiciary. For the parties and the public to know which tools were used in the preparation process of the decision is also important in terms of the openness of judicial activities.

The second example raises different questions. It is, of course, possible for experts to make use of new technologies in their technical examinations. However, issues such as the criteria according to which AI-supported analyses operate, the reliability of the model used, whether different systems would reach similar results on the same data, and how these analyses can be audited will be discussed more in the period ahead. Especially considering the impact of expert reports on court decisions, it is important to establish standards regarding the use of these technologies.

Similar debates are not taking place only in Turkey. The European Union, with the Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) it adopted, has classified artificial intelligence systems according to their fields of use and has envisaged stricter rules in areas that may affect fundamental rights and freedoms. Artificial intelligence systems to be used in the field of justice are also considered among the applications given special importance in this context. The basic approach of the regulation is quite clear: Technology may be used; however, human oversight and legal responsibility cannot be eliminated.

In Turkish law, however, there is not yet any specific legislation that directly regulates the use of artificial intelligence in judicial processes. The Code of Civil Procedure, the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Law on Expert Witnesses do not contain detailed provisions regarding AI-supported analyses. Despite this, the fact that the practice has effectively begun may make it necessary for legal regulations to take these developments into account in the near future.

There is no doubt that artificial intelligence offers important possibilities that can reduce the workload of lawyers and members of the judiciary. It can make significant contributions in many areas, such as examining extensive case files, researching precedent decisions, comparing foreign legal practices and accelerating technical analyses. At the same time, it is equally important to clearly determine the method, limits and oversight mechanisms for the use of this technology in judicial proceedings.

The two examples seen today can be regarded as signs of a new era in the Turkish judiciary. It is understood that artificial intelligence will be used more widely in the coming years. However, regardless of the pace of technological development, the principles that form the basis of judicial proceedings — impartiality, reasoned decisions, legal responsibility and the judge's independent reasoning — will continue to retain their importance. Artificial intelligence can be a powerful tool that supports adjudication; but for now, it is still far from being the subject that assumes legal responsibility and renders the final decision.

Perhaps the real issue that should be focused on today is not whether artificial intelligence should be used in the judiciary, but within which principles this use will be carried out. Because technological development is inevitable. What really matters is whether this development can be managed in a way compatible with the fundamental principles of the rule of law.

Attorney Deniz Ali İlkem Demir