In a law office that runs enforcement proceedings, a large part of the day goes into answering the same question: “What is new in our files?” A new service-of-process note, a decision from the enforcement office, a garnishment reply from a bank, an incoming payment… With a few dozen files you can check each one by hand. Once the portfolio runs into hundreds or thousands of files, opening them one by one becomes one of the most expensive tasks in the office.
This article explains how file search works in the UYAP Lawyer Portal (Avukat Portal), what the portal actually does and does not offer when people talk about “bulk file search”, and where the manual method reaches its limits.
How file search works in the Lawyer Portal
The UYAP Lawyer Portal is available at avukat.uyap.gov.tr. In the portal that was redesigned in 2024, you sign in through the browser; according to bar association announcements in 2026, sign-in is now provided through the Adalet E-İmza Uygulaması (Ministry of Justice e-signature application) or sign-in with e-Devlet. Once signed in, you can reach your files in several ways:
- The search box on the home page: You can search by party name, file number, court or office name, or menu name.
- Shortcuts by file type: There are separate shortcuts for civil, criminal and enforcement files.
- The file search screen: Files in which you act as counsel are listed according to the criteria the screen offers (such as court or office, file status and date range).
When you open a file from the list, the new portal’s card view shows party details, documents, the procedural history and collections on a single page. UDF and other document types can be previewed without downloading them. For reviewing a single file, this layout is very convenient.
What does “bulk search” mean in the portal?
An important distinction is worth making here. The portal can list your files in bulk, but to see each file’s current status, new documents or debtor query results you usually have to open the file itself. Queries to public institutions such as MERNİS (civil registry addresses), SGK (social security), EGM (vehicle registry) and TAKBİS (land registry) are also run per file, and the results are shown inside that file.
It is no surprise that this is one of the points lawyers raise most often in the Union of Turkish Bar Associations’ reports and recommendations on UYAP: without a bulk query option, every enforcement file has to be checked separately. So when most offices say “bulk file search in UYAP”, what they really mean is a workflow made of listing, checking file by file and writing the results down somewhere.
How the manual method usually works
In many offices the routine looks roughly like this:
- The file list is kept in an Excel sheet (client, debtor, enforcement office, file number).
- A staff member opens the files in the portal one after another and checks the procedural history and new documents.
- Where needed, debtor queries are run in the file and the results are captured as screenshots or notes.
- The findings are copied by hand into Excel or another system used by the office.
- The lawyer reviews these notes and decides the next step (service, garnishment request, update to the client).
This works for a small number of files. The problems appear as the volume grows.
The limits of the manual method
1. Time
A simple calculation: even if opening a file, checking it, running a query where needed and taking notes takes only 2–3 minutes per file, a portfolio of 1,000 files means 30 to 50 hours of work. And it is not a one-off job; files are alive and the checks must be repeated regularly.
2. Errors and missed checks
Attention drops in long, repetitive work. Skipping a file, writing a note on the wrong row or mixing up two debtors with similar names are common mistakes. In enforcement work, such small errors come back as a missed deadline or a request sent for the wrong debtor.
3. Information goes stale quickly
A spreadsheet compiled by hand starts going out of date the moment it is finished. A payment or service note that was not there on Monday may be in the file by Wednesday. The bigger the gap between the sheet the office relies on and the actual status in UYAP, the higher the risk of taking the wrong step.
4. The single e-signature bottleneck and security rules
Access to the portal is tied to the lawyer’s personal e-signature. According to Ministry announcements reported in the press, attempting simultaneous sign-ins with the same e-signature from different locations or IP addresses, or performing operations faster than human speed, can trigger a security lock and temporarily block access for several hours. Splitting the work between several people who use the same signature at the same time is therefore not a solution, either under the rules or in practice.
5. No reporting
It is hard to answer questions such as “In how many files did the address change this month?” or “Which debtors have started a new job?” from hand-written notes. The reports that managers and clients expect require extra effort.
6. Data security
Debtor addresses, employer details and vehicle records are personal data. Keeping them in Excel files that circulate as email attachments and exist in copies on different computers is also a risk under Turkey’s data protection law (KVKK).
Tips for a more structured checking routine
Whatever tool you use, the following principles reduce the workload:
- Group your files: Create groups by client, stage of the proceedings (awaiting service, finalised, garnishment stage) and amount owed. Each group can have a different checking frequency.
- Set a checking schedule: Files awaiting service can be checked often, while files that have been inactive for a long time can be checked less frequently.
- Use a single place for records: Query results and notes should be kept in one system, linked to the file; having the same information in three different spreadsheets causes confusion.
- Define the next step for each result: Rules such as “if the address changed, serve at the new address” or “if an SGK record appears, request salary garnishment” turn check results straight into a task list.
- Make responsibilities clear: It should be clear who is responsible for checking each group, and actions should be logged.
When using automation tools, the portal’s security rules still have to be taken into account. The e-signature belongs personally to the lawyer; knowing which actions are performed with it and keeping them traceable is the lawyer’s responsibility.
How Asistan34 makes this easier
Since 2010, Asistan34 has been developing call center, CRM and UYAP integration solutions designed specifically for law and enforcement offices. Today more than 500 offices in all 81 provinces of Turkey use Asistan34. With UYAP integration, the most time-consuming parts of file checks no longer depend on clicking through screens one by one:
- MERNİS address, SGK and EGM queries for the debtors in files where you are a party can be run in bulk.
- If you use Asistan34 CRM, query results are added automatically to the debtor’s file and your agents see them during calls. If you do not use the CRM, you can receive the results as an Excel list and PDF documents.
- Bulk enforcement filings and bulk requests, as well as encumbrance reports, are managed within the same structure.
Check results are thus kept in one record linked to the file instead of scattered spreadsheets, and reporting is done from that record. All you need for these operations is the lawyer’s own UYAP e-signature.
To discuss a setup that fits the size of your portfolio and the way you work, get in touch with us or request a demo. For details on debtor queries, see our article on speeding up MERNİS, SGK and EGM queries.