This content has been translated from the original text.
The use of AI-based programs such as ChatGPT, Gemini and Grok is increasing every day. It is unthinkable that these technologies, which make life considerably easier and affect almost every sector, would have no impact in the field of law. Indeed, we have started to see more frequent news stories such as “He had a traffic fine cancelled with a petition written by artificial intelligence.” Yes, artificial intelligence makes people's work easier on the basis of the data it holds, but how well does this assistance fit the nature of the task at hand and the realities of the present moment? In this article, we will seek answers to these questions.
The use of AI-based programs such as ChatGPT, Gemini and Grok is increasing every day. It is unthinkable that these technologies, which make life considerably easier and affect almost every sector, would have no impact in the field of law. Indeed, we have started to see more frequent news stories such as “He had a traffic fine cancelled with a petition written by artificial intelligence.” Yes, artificial intelligence makes people's work easier on the basis of the data it holds, but how well does this assistance fit the nature of the task at hand and the realities of the present moment?
Thanks to the large data sets and language-processing capabilities it possesses, artificial intelligence can produce various legal documents and can even assist us with complex transactions. Here, however, we face an important question: can a person with no legal background write a petition simply by describing the problem he or she is experiencing to an artificial intelligence?
To find the answer to this question, one needs to know the limits of artificial intelligence. AI systems produce outputs by building patterns from existing data. In other words, in the technical sense, the answer to this question could be said to be yes, artificial intelligence can draw up a contract; but whether that contract would be a legally valid one is debatable. This is because law rests on fundamental qualities such as the capacity for interpretation, personal conviction in conscience, the ability to apply changing legislation in an up-to-date manner and the ability to make ethical assessments. As of now, artificial intelligence does not possess such qualities. For this reason, even if a contract prepared by artificial intelligence looks correct in form, important issues will arise, such as its legal compliance and the extent to which it meets the parties' specific needs. For example, matters such as how the balance between special provisions and general provisions has been struck, or the extent to which the interests of the parties are protected, can be answered not by technical knowledge alone but by legal experience and the ability to evaluate. Artificial intelligence cannot yet carry out such multi-layered assessments as comprehensively as humans. Of course, there is also the matter of knowledge of case law. Many AI systems that have not been specially trained on current decisions of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) or on established case law either do not include them at all or consist of incomplete and outdated information. Indeed, it has even been observed that they sometimes write out Court of Cassation decisions that do not exist.
So why is this so important?
In its most fundamental sense, law assumes the function of regulating and protecting rights, and it performs this function largely through legal documents. Legal documents are therefore not merely texts; they are critical instruments that directly affect the rights and obligations of individuals. In this context, a contract created by a person without legal knowledge on his or her own, or solely with the help of a general-purpose artificial intelligence, may appear adequate at first glance but can lead to serious harm later on.
It is quite difficult for citizens to reach a correct and valid legal outcome relying solely on information coming from artificial intelligence, because such information has been generated without good legal research and without evaluating reliable sources.
Let us even create a dispute and see up close how artificial intelligence handles the situation:
- “I am a landlord. My tenant pays the full rent, but the 20 TL transfer fee is deducted from me. I want to evict my tenant. Write me a sample petition on this...”
- “The fact that the transfer fee is deducted from you even though the tenant pays the full rent does not in itself constitute a ground for eviction. However, if the lease agreement clearly states who will bear such expenses, you can serve a notice on that basis and commence the eviction process once the period has expired. Below I am providing a sample notice and a draft eviction undertaking that can be used afterwards.”
Following this, on the basis of the inputs entered, it produced a sample contract and made the following statements:
- “Even though the full rent has been paid, bringing an eviction action against the tenant solely because a small amount, namely the transfer fee (for example 20 TL), is borne by the landlord may be regarded as an unfounded and bad-faith action under Turkish law.”
For the reasons it explained above, ChatGPT stated that this event would not constitute a direct ground for eviction from the landlord's perspective and that the action to be brought could be regarded as an unfounded and bad-faith action. When we asked it to find a Court of Cassation decision on the subject, it gave the following answer.
- “The Court of Cassation may regard this situation as bad-faith conduct. In the decision of the 6th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation, Docket No. 2020/1152 E., Decision No. 2021/2568 K., it was stated that where a property evicted on the ground of need is left vacant for a long time, the ground for eviction is insincere and compensation must be awarded in favour of the tenant. Furthermore, in decisions of the Court of Cassation, leaving a property evicted on the ground of need vacant for a long time may indicate that the ground for eviction is insincere, and in that case compensation may be awarded in favour of the tenant. These decisions show that a landlord's request for eviction without a genuine and sincere need may be regarded as bad faith.
Although the decision given as an example does not fit our specific case, decisions of the Court of Cassation also expressly state that the bank transfer fee in rent payments must be borne by the tenant. According to the decision of the Civil General Assembly of the Court of Cassation, Docket No. 2017/6-980 E., Decision No. 2021/1302 K., it was held that where rent is paid by bank transfer, the transfer fee belongs to the tenant, and a decision that can serve as a precedent on this point was given. In particular, in the examination carried out, on the grounds that “Since the subject of the enforcement proceedings is a monetary debt arising from the contract, and since no provision to the contrary was laid down in the contract, the monetary debt relating to the rent is payable at the creditor's place of residence at the time of payment, and therefore the place of performance is also the creditor's place of residence. As stated above, since under Article 89 of the TCO rent is a debt that must be taken to the creditor and paid there, it must be taken to the lessor and paid in person, or deposited into the bank account on condition that the cost is borne by the tenant, or sent by PTT as a payment on delivery at the residence. Where the rent is deposited into the lessor's bank account, the tenant is liable for the transfer fee deducted by the bank. Payments not made in the manner described cannot be accepted as lawful payments. For this reason, the court must decide to set aside the objection and to order the eviction of the leased property on the basis of the underpaid rent amounts that are the subject of the enforcement proceedings,” the Court ruled that the rent debt is a debt to be delivered to the creditor, that the tenant is therefore obliged to get the rent to the lessor, and that the tenant will accordingly also be liable for the bank transfer fee.”
As can be understood from the example above, while ChatGPT produced a sample petition on the basis of an incomplete and erroneous answer, lawyers prepare their documents on the basis of their knowledge of court decisions and of the details of practice. However, a person who has had no legal education will not be aware of the existence of such case law, nor will he or she be able to research and evaluate such decisions. Moreover, the example addressed here is a relatively simple one in legal terms, and in disputes involving more complex, intricate and technical details, acting in reliance on artificial intelligence will lead to far greater errors, misinterpretations and harm that is difficult to reverse.
If the warnings are not heeded, then with the rapid spread of the use of AI models, it will be inevitable that the harm suffered as a result of decisions based on misleading or incomplete information, and the negative news stories on this subject, will increase. This is because law is not merely a set of rules and a system; it is also a discipline that centres on the human being, intention, conscience, social rules and the specific case. For this reason, although support may be obtained on certain technical matters, acting solely on information provided by artificial intelligence is extremely risky in multi-dimensional and complex legal matters that directly concern people. This is because AI tools are not interpreters; they are tools that derive patterns from data. The essence of law, on the other hand, takes shape according to each specific case, the intention and will of the parties, their living conditions and social value judgements. In this respect, it is clear that legal processes are too complex and too human to be carried out by algorithms alone.
In the light of all these assessments, artificial intelligence tools can never replace a lawyer, a judge or a legal expert. For the time being, such technologies can play a supportive role in the processes of obtaining information and finding direction. Legal evaluation, decision-making and responsibility belong entirely to human beings. For this reason, particularly in legal matters, it is of great importance that information obtained from artificial intelligence is always confirmed by the opinion of a competent expert in the field and that final steps are taken accordingly. Otherwise, erroneous guidance may lead to serious loss of rights. Furthermore, there is as yet no final and binding judicial decision on the legal liability of AI systems such as ChatGPT in such situations. This makes it necessary to be more cautious in transactions based on artificial intelligence.
