AI hallucination cases in Turkey: fabricated case law, investigations and official guidance
Last updated
Short answer: In 2026, allegations that AI-produced wrong or non-existent case-law citations had been used in filings came up in two cases in Turkey. In June 2026 in Kızılcahamam, a court wrote to the bar association and the public prosecutor’s office because it could not find the Yargıtay (Court of Cassation) decisions cited in a petition on UYAP (the Turkish e-justice system). In August 2026, in a case in Istanbul, the defendant’s counsel argued that a Constitutional Court decision cited in a petition did not exist. The guide published by the Union of Turkish Bar Associations (Türkiye Barolar Birliği, TBB) in August 2026 states that case law obtained from AI may not be submitted without being confirmed. We update this page as new cases and statements appear.
Cases reported in the Turkish press#
| Date | Place | What happened | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| June 2026 (first report 17.06.2026) | Kızılcahamam Civil Court of First Instance (asliye hukuk mahkemesi), Ankara | A lawyer used AI to add case law to a statement of defence. The claimant’s counsel objected to the citations; the court found that the decisions could not be found on UYAP under the citations given. The lawyer maintains that the content of the decisions was genuine, that only the docket (esas), decision (karar) and chamber numbers were written wrongly, and that there was no intent. | The court wrote to the Ankara Bar Association and the public prosecutor’s office; the bar and the prosecutor’s office opened investigations. No outcome has been reported in the press. |
| August 2026 (report 24.08.2026) | Istanbul Anatolian 9th Commercial Court of First Instance (asliye ticaret mahkemesi) | In an action for a negative declaration (menfi tespit davası), the defendant’s counsel argued that the Constitutional Court decision relied on in the claimant’s petition did not exist and that the petition had been copied from AI output. The claimant’s counsel denied this. | The court did not assess the allegation; it sent the file to the labour court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. There is no court finding that AI was used. |
In neither case is the text of the court’s decision publicly available; the information comes from the press. In the Kızılcahamam case some reports speak of a “fabricated decision” (uydurma karar), while the lawyer speaks of a “wrong citation” (hatalı künye); we report both sides’ accounts together. We do not name the individuals involved.
Sources (in Turkish): Hukuki Haber, Kısa Dalga, Memurlar.net (Kızılcahamam); Cumhuriyet, Adalet.tv (Istanbul Anatolian).
What does official guidance say?#
Union of Turkish Bar Associations, AI Use Recommendation Guide for Lawyers (Avukatlar İçin Yapay Zekâ Kullanımı Tavsiye Rehberi), August 2026. Prepared by the TBB’s Information and Technology Law Commission, the guide is advisory. According to the guide:
- A lawyer may not submit legislation, case law, a citation or a fact obtained from AI to a court, an arbitrator, a mediator or an administrative authority without confirming it from an official and reliable source.
- Submitting fabricated case law may be regarded as a serious breach of the duty of professional care.
- If it later comes to light that a wrong output has entered the file, the lawyer promptly considers informing the authority concerned and the options for correcting it.
- Client information and case-file content that has not been anonymised should not be entered into tools without adequate safeguards.
Personal Data Protection Authority (Kişisel Verileri Koruma Kurumu), Generative AI and the Protection of Personal Data Guide (Üretken Yapay Zekâ ve Kişisel Verilerin Korunması Rehberi), November 2025. As an example of hallucination risk, the guide gives a lawyer researching case law who comes across court decisions that do not actually exist, and recommends checking the accuracy of outputs. It also lists the exposure of personal data written into prompts as a significant risk. The guide on the Authority’s website (in Turkish)
We have not come across any published guidance from the HSK (Council of Judges and Prosecutors) or from Yargıtay on the use of AI by judges and prosecutors.
The picture worldwide#
- Mata v. Avianca (United States, 2023): Decisions invented by ChatGPT ended up in a filing; the lawyers and their firm were fined. One of the first known cases of an AI hallucination reaching a court.
- Ayinde v. Haringey (England, June 2025): The High Court treated the fake citations as a breach of professional rules, referred the lawyers concerned to their professional regulators and issued a warning to the whole profession.
- Damien Charlotin’s case database (HEC Paris): It collects cases worldwide in which AI hallucinations have found their way into court documents. As of 2 November 2026 it lists 2,262 cases, with none from Turkey. The database
A real search: how often does AI get it wrong?#
In our own test we asked the same AI model the same questions with and without a Yargı PRO connection, and looked up every citation it gave in its source. We have published the results and the method on the page How accurate is AI on Turkish law?
How can you protect yourself?#
- Look up every citation in its source. All four details (chamber, docket number, decision number and date) must match together.
- Compare the quote with the text of the decision. Summarising a real decision wrongly is also a hallucination.
- Work connected to a source. If your AI can search a real database of decisions, it retrieves the citation from the source instead of writing it from memory; check the result all the same.
Verifying step by step: AI hallucinations: how to verify fake Turkish court citations. To connect your AI to a database of decisions: How to connect Claude, ChatGPT and Gemini to Turkish law sources
Frequently asked questions
Has an investigation been opened in Turkey into a lawyer who submitted AI-fabricated decisions?
According to press reports, in June 2026 in Kızılcahamam a court wrote to the bar association and the public prosecutor’s office because it could not find the Yargıtay decisions cited in a petition on UYAP; the bar and the prosecutor’s office opened investigations. The lawyer maintains that the content of the decisions was genuine and only the numbers were wrong. No outcome has been reported.
What does the Union of Turkish Bar Associations say about AI use?
Under the TBB’s advisory guide published in August 2026, a lawyer may not submit legislation, case law or a citation obtained from AI to a court without confirming it from an official and reliable source; submitting fabricated case law may be regarded as a serious breach of the duty of professional care.
How do I protect myself from fabricated citations?
Look up every citation in its source: the chamber, docket number, decision number and date must all match. Compare the quote with the text of the decision, and use your AI connected to a real database of decisions.