Part of the AI Regulation News hub.
The Union of Turkish Bar Associations released a recommendation guide on AI use by lawyers and a workshop report setting out six principles
Bar bodies across several countries have landed on the same short list of AI principles. Turkey's version is worth reading for what it puts first: human oversight at every stage, and no shifting of final responsibility.
Bottom line: A recommendation guide and a workshop report from a professional body. Neither is a disciplinary rule, and the announcement describes them as recommendations shared with the profession and the public.
Who this affects: Turkish advocates, bar association boards, law firm managing partners, and in-house counsel in Turkey supervising outside counsel who use generative AI.
Issue date: 20 June 2026, the date of the results panel at which both documents were shared. The underlying workshop was held 14 and 15 February 2026.
What changed: TBB moved from workshop to published output, with six principles described as agreed and six roadmap conclusions covering professional rules, AI literacy training, client data safeguards and the bars' role in supervising legal technology.
Analysis: The principle doing the real work is that final professional responsibility belongs to the lawyer. That converts an AI failure from a tool problem into a professional conduct problem, and it is the assumption behind reported disciplinary and cost sanctions elsewhere. A guide that says this before a Turkish disciplinary case says it is a warning that is cheap to act on now.
Primary sources: TBB news item, 20 June 2026
- Instrument (EN)
- Recommendation Guide on the Use of Artificial Intelligence for Lawyers, with the Artificial Intelligence and Advocacy Workshop Final Report
- Authority
- Turkiye Barolar Birligi (Union of Turkish Bar Associations), Information Technology and Technology Law Commission
- Jurisdiction
- Turkey
- Status
- Published and presented at a public results panel
- Bindingness
- None. Recommendation guidance for the profession, not a disciplinary rule
- Issue date / next deadline
- 20 June 2026; no compliance deadline stated
- Origin
- First workshop held 14 and 15 February 2026 with bar presidents, academics, lawyers, legal technology specialists and stakeholders
- Primary source
- https://www.barobirlik.org.tr/Haberler/turkiye-barolar-birligi-yapay-zeka-ve-avukatlik-calistayi-sonuc-paneli-gerceklestirildi-86541
What was released on 20 June
TBB held the Artificial Intelligence and Advocacy Workshop Results Panel on 20 June 2026 at the Avukat Ozdemir Ozok Congress and Culture Centre, to share two documents with the profession and the public: the Recommendation Guide on the Use of Artificial Intelligence for Lawyers, and the workshop's final report.
The opening address was given by Av. Ali Bayram, TBB board member and coordinator of the Information Technology and Technology Law Commission. Av. Dr. Resul Goksoy, the commission's spokesperson, moderated. The panel drew on Prof. Dr. Ahmet Hasan Koltuksuz, Dr. Pinar Bacaksiz, Av. Murat Osman Kandir, Av. Bora Can Alcan and Ozlem Celmen.
The topics the announcement lists for the panel are narrow and familiar: professional secrecy, protection of personal data, client rights, human oversight, the verification obligation and professional responsibility.
Six principles the workshop agreed
Bayram set out six principles described as points of consensus. Human oversight is to be preserved at every stage. Final professional responsibility belongs to the lawyer. AI outputs are to be subjected to critical verification. Client confidentiality and the duty of secrecy are to be preserved. The security of personal data is to be ensured. Standards of transparency, accountability and ethical use are to be developed.
Alongside those, the announcement records a shared view that AI will not be treated as a subject that takes the place of the lawyer, and grounds that in what it calls the basis of the profession: independent judgement, ethical responsibility, professional discretion and the duty of defence.
The counterweight is stated too. Used correctly and in a supervisable way, AI is accepted as a significant tool that speeds up lawyers' access to information, increases their productivity and supports their professional activity.
The roadmap, in six items
The workshop's conclusions are framed as the need for a comprehensive road map for the future of the profession. Professional rules and standards should be developed for AI use in law. Continuing education programmes should be created to raise lawyers' AI literacy. Technical and legal safeguards for the protection of client data should be strengthened.
Transparency and accountability should be the basis of AI system use. The right of defence, professional independence and fair trial principles should sit at the centre of all regulation. And TBB and the bars should play an active role in the processes of developing and supervising legal technologies.
That last item is a claim of jurisdiction as much as a recommendation. A bar union positioning itself to supervise legal technology is signalling where it expects future rules to be written.
Where the framing has already moved
The announcement records the workshop's core finding as a shift in the question: the argument has moved past whether AI will be used, and the real issue is determining the ethical principles, legal boundaries and responsibility mechanisms within which it is used.
It also records where the tools are already in use in Turkish practice: legal research, contract review, case-law analysis, document management and decision support.
Set against that, the announcement insists that legal services are not merely technical processes, and that human dignity, fundamental rights and freedoms, the right to a fair trial and the right of defence are to be held above any technological development.
What we did not verify
We opened the TBB news item of 20 June 2026 in full, in Turkish, and every principle, conclusion, name and date above is taken from it. The page's own posting date is 20 June 2026.
We did not open the Recommendation Guide itself or the workshop final report; the news item we read does not carry a link to either document. We therefore have not seen the guide's operative text, its structure, or any wording it uses about sanctions or supervision. We also did not check the Turkish Advocacy Law or TBB disciplinary rules for any related provision.
We do not claim the guide is binding on Turkish advocates, that any bar has adopted it as a disciplinary standard, or that it imposes a specific verification procedure. The announcement calls it a recommendation guide and that is as far as we will take it.
The principle to act on is the one about final professional responsibility, because it is the one a disciplinary panel can apply without any new rule. If your firm uses generative tools for research or case-law analysis, the defensible position is a written verification step with a named human owner for each output that reaches a client or a court. TBB has now said in public what that expectation looks like, which makes it harder to argue later that nobody had been told.
Source File
Open the TBB news item of 20 June 2026 and confirm the panel date and venue, the naming of both documents, the six agreed principles beginning with human oversight at every stage, and the six numbered workshop conclusions.
The basic assessment that emerged from the workshop is that the discussion has moved beyond the point of whether artificial intelligence will be used; the real issue is determining the ethical principles, legal boundaries and responsibility mechanisms within which artificial intelligence will be used. ยท Av. Ali Bayram, TBB news item, 20 June 2026, translated from Turkish
FAQ
Is the TBB guide binding on Turkish lawyers?
The announcement describes it as a recommendation guide shared with the profession and the public. We did not see any statement in it making the guide a disciplinary rule, and we did not open the guide itself.
What are the six principles?
Human oversight preserved at every stage; final professional responsibility resting with the lawyer; critical verification of AI outputs; preservation of client confidentiality and the duty of secrecy; security of personal data; and development of transparency, accountability and ethical use standards.
Where does TBB say AI is already being used in Turkish practice?
Legal research, contract review, case-law analysis, document management and decision support processes, on the announcement's account of the workshop findings.
Does TBB want a role in supervising legal technology?
One of the six workshop conclusions is that TBB and the bars should play an active role in the processes of developing and supervising legal technologies.
Related briefings
Sponsored Training
Practical AI training for regulated professionals, built around verification, documentation and a defensible process. See the courses.