Speech by the Chancellor of Justice Ülle Madise at the General Assembly of the Estonian Bar Association
20 March 2026, MUBA
You could title this talk polarisation, artificial intelligence or bureaucracy — sigh, turn the page, and move on.
Fortunately, my short remarks don’t have a title, so I’ll touch on all of them just a little.
For years now, society has been pulled apart both by those who shout and wave their fists, and by those who call themselves liberal and caring.
Both sides — perhaps without even realising it — are in effect denying the rule of law that protects human rights. Denying a state where political gain is not pursued by fuelling baseless hostility against independent institutions and impartial officials; where a person can only be declared guilty by a court, based on evidence; where people can disagree respectfully.
Just imagine what would happen if society split into hostile camps, each with its own ideologues, judges, journalists, spies and lawyers. It does not benefit Estonia if independent officials are pushed into choosing sides, or else face attacks from every direction.
This autocratic way of thinking shows itself here too — including in attacks against the administration of justice. Against judges, lawyers and officials who are simply doing their work lawfully and ethically.
Like political trends often do, this wave — driven by distrust, hostility, and a taste for mob-style “cancellation” — arrived in Estonia with a delay. Unfortunately, we did not make full use of the chance to learn from others’ mistakes.
Still, perhaps together we can stop the dismantling of a rule-of-law state that protects everyone. We must not allow a situation where some people’s fundamental rights are treated as less worthy of protection, or where some constitutional values are automatically elevated above others — just because that happens to feel right to an inflamed public at the moment.
We, as professionals, cannot give up facts, logic, or the requirement to seek constitutional balance. Yes, it is difficult — we saw it during the pandemic, and we see it now in matters of security and other emotionally charged issues. Judges, officials, lawyers — it is our shared duty to uphold the Constitution even when a majority may passionately demand the violation of human rights.
Recently, there have been cases where lawyers are equated with their clients.
We must remain faithful to our oath and professional ethics, even under pressure — and support one another when needed.
Dear colleagues, thank you for standing firm in protecting the most sensitive part of banking secrecy — transaction data. It seems all too easy to tempt the public with promises of total security or convenience. The Constitution supports neither as an absolute goal. It requires that freedom — and the responsibility that comes with it — be preserved as far as possible.
A few words on bureaucracy. At its core, bureaucracy is an attempt to steer and control human activity. Permits, procedures, reporting, supervision — and more procedures — all meant to prevent things from going off track and to protect decision-makers.
There is also a belief that if the procedure is perfectly followed, the result must be good — or at least defensible. Even when the outcome is, in reality, unjust or harmful.
Reducing bureaucracy means accepting more freedom and responsibility. That is not easy. But perhaps we here can help promote better governance — less procedure, more solutions, and more room for decision-makers to actually decide.
Dear colleagues, as data processing capabilities grow, it becomes increasingly important to ask whether we should share our data at all — and whether the state should use it. Of course, crimes must be investigated, and where benefits outweigh risks, data and technology should be used. But not everything that is technologically possible is right or necessary.
Ideas about total economic control and cashless societies have been floated. If all personal and economic data were pooled and analysed, it would be easy to calculate taxes, detect “suspicious” citizens and allocate benefits. Simple and secure — at least on the surface.
But the more data is collected, the less freedom remains, and the more vulnerable society becomes to autocratic power. This is not a fantasy. Even democratically elected leaders can turn autocratic and use surveillance tools first against political opponents, then against others.
Perhaps this time we can learn from history.
Current research suggests that excessive reliance on AI can dull thinking — in marketing and HR already. Lawyers and leaders have so far been less affected. Our ability to think critically, creatively, and with empathy is still needed.
So let’s not send each other endless AI-generated text dumps.
Thank you — and have a productive General Assembly!