78 Bar Associations Issue Joint Response to Justice Minister Gürlek's 'AI in Judiciary' Remarks: It Cannot Be Delegated

78 bar associations have issued a joint statement regarding Justice Minister Akın Gürlek's remarks on the use of artificial intelligence in the judiciary.

Emphasizing that AI-supported legal processes should not weaken the right to defense, the statement declared, "We will continue our struggle against the weakening of the defense authority through the pretext of technological tools."

The statement included the following expressions:

"The projects titled 'use of artificial intelligence in the judiciary' and 'AI support in citizens' access to legal processes,' voiced by Justice Minister Akın Gürlek in an interview, are being closely monitored by bar associations. The effects of this approach on the fundamental guarantees of the judicial system must be carefully evaluated. The right to a fair trial is a fundamental principle that must be protected alongside the effective use of the right to defense and guarantees of a trial in accordance with equity before an independent and impartial judiciary.

The weakening of these guarantees directly undermines legal security and trust in the judiciary. Pursuant to Article 1 of the Attorneyship Law, the legal profession is a public service and represents the independent defense, which is a constituent element of the judiciary. Under Article 35 of the same Law, the authority to provide legal opinions, to file lawsuits and conduct defenses before judicial authorities, and to follow up on judicial proceedings belongs exclusively to attorneys. The purpose stated in Article 2 of the Law is the regulation of legal relations, the resolution of disputes with justice and equity, and the ensuring of the full implementation of legal rules. This purpose can only be realized through ethical principles, professional responsibility, and conscientious judgment.

Practices that allow citizens to receive legal support via artificial intelligence without the assistance of an attorney constitute a direct interference with the essence of the right to defense. Legal processes are, beyond mere technical data processing activities, activities of conscientious evaluation and rights protection shaped according to the concrete case. The freedom to seek rights and the immunity of defense are fundamental and inviolable constitutional guarantees that cannot be reduced to algorithmic limits.

The emphasis on technological transformation cannot evolve into a point that restricts or replaces the legal profession. Just as the demand for an 'AI judge' by lawyers is contrary to legal logic, the administration's 'AI lawyer' approach is equally problematic. Justice is not a mathematical result obtained solely through data processing, but the product of human reasoning passed through a conscientious filter. Quality in the judiciary is measured by reaching rights in the shortest time and in the fairest way through qualified defense before independent courts. In this framework, digitalization should be positioned not as an end, but as a tool that supports judicial processes.

The priority of the Ministry of Justice should be to strengthen the independent defense instead of questioning the areas of authority of the defense, to implement merit-based reforms that strengthen the quality of judges and prosecutors, to develop the technical infrastructure that will accelerate trials, and to improve physical and legal facilities for all elements of the judiciary.

As bar associations, we respectfully announce to the public that we will resolutely continue our legal and institutional struggle against any attempt to weaken the defense authority—a constituent element of the judiciary—under the pretext of technological tools, to narrow professional powers, and to reduce legal services to a mechanical structure under the name of 'artificial intelligence'."