The Anatomy of Criminal Defense Practice: The Art of Defense, Professional Psychology, Character and Ethical Stance

The Eight Character Axes of Defense: The Intellectual Backbone of This Article

This study is not a compilation of “famous attorneys” that lines up portraits one after another. Each historical figure is read within a character axis indicated by verifiable patterns of behavior and work. In this way biographical detail becomes an intellectual tool that explains the mental and psychological structure of the profession of defense.

These eight axes are not disconnected from one another. Humanist conscience can slide into over-identification without ethical distance; courage into aggression without self-restraint; passion for work into burnout without limits; and oratory into spectacle without a factual basis. Professional character is less about the greatness of a single virtue than about the ability to balance opposing values in the same person.

Criminal Defense Is a Difficult Art: Character Before Knowledge, Measure After Knowledge

Themis’s blindfold symbolizes impartiality, her scales measure, and her sword the coercive power of public authority. Yet the real weight of criminal proceedings shows not in the symbols a statue holds but in the face of a person who lives with the possibility of losing their freedom, reputation, family and future. Criminal defense is a difficult art because the attorney works at once with the abstract language of the law, with the irreversible concrete consequences of human life, and with the pressure of their own conscience.

Explaining criminal defense by legal knowledge alone is like reducing a violin virtuoso to knowledge of musical notation. Knowledge of the law is necessary, but by itself it does not create the spirit of defense. Defense becomes an art where knowledge joins with understanding of people, preparation with intuition, courage with measure, loyalty with independence, and oratory with the ability to keep silent. The people, fears, silences and moral tensions of every case file are different; for this reason qualified defense is not the repetition of a ready-made template but an intellectual labor built anew for each concrete human story.

Of two attorneys who have gone through the same legal education, one hesitates to sit beside a person whom society has declared guilty in advance; the other, without acquitting that person and without approving the act, recalls that human dignity existed before any judgment. One only hears the client’s words; the other also notices the fear, the shame, the silence and the contradiction behind them. One speaks at the hearing; the other knows when to stay silent, which sentence to shorten, and which question will change the way the whole courtroom thinks.

The first material of this art is trust. A person under criminal accusation often experiences more than legal uncertainty; they also struggle with exclusion, stigma, shame, anger and fear of the future. A good criminal defense attorney neither belittles these feelings nor lets them take over the management of the case. They listen to the client without judging; try to understand what is told before accepting it as true; explain the process in plain language; and build trust without promising outcomes. In this way the attorney, without taking on the role of therapist or savior, helps the person become the subject of their own decisions again.

The second material of the art is the weight of responsibility. A criminal defense attorney cannot always leave the case file in the courtroom when they walk out. A statement, a forgotten detail, a wrongly constructed sentence or an unnecessary silence can be recalled again at night. For what is at stake is not only a legal dispute but a person’s freedom, reputation and direction in life. This burden can make the attorney more careful; left unmanaged, however, it can turn into secondary trauma, constant alarm and burnout. Professional maturity does not mean denying the burden but carrying it within a sustainable discipline of work.

The third material of the art is the human story. Without diminishing the weight of the act or the accusation, the criminal defense attorney must resist the kind of thinking that reduces a person to a single moment and a single label. For defense to make a person visible does not mean erasing the victim’s pain. On the contrary, so that criminal justice can look at all people with the same seriousness, it requires assessing the realities lived by the perpetrator, the victim, the witnesses and their relatives without confusing them with one another.

For this reason criminal defense is not only a difficult profession but an art of continual balance:

• Drawing close to the client, yet not losing critical distance.
• Resisting public pressure, yet not becoming insensitive to the weight of the victimization.
• Speaking forcefully, yet not turning the defense into a personal show.
• Placing the case file at the center of one’s life, yet not consuming one’s own life inside the file.
• Preserving hope, yet promising no outcome whatsoever.
• Being courageous in service of a right, yet not confusing courage with aggression.

For this reason a good criminal defense attorney is not merely “a person who knows the law.” They are at the same time:

• an observer able to look into the dark and fragile regions of the human soul;
• a strategist who does not lose critical distance while empathizing;
• an independent character able to stand alone under public pressure;
• a professional who learns to protect their own soul while listening to another’s pain;
• a narrator who devotes speech not to spectacle but to making the truth visible;
• a defender who does not deny their fear but does not let fear set the direction of their conduct.

The central thesis of this article is this: Character is the invisible method of defense. What the attorney will notice, which pressure they can resist, which question they will ask, when they will step back and what price they are willing to bear are most often determined by their character. Professional mastery, in turn, is the ability to discipline this strength of character with knowledge, self-restraint and ethics.

“Laborers of the Mind” (“Fikir Amelesi”): Professional Humility and a Critique of the Legal Aristocracy

Tugay Aydın’s legal-history study, examining the diary prepared by the Istanbul Bar Association (İstanbul Barosu) for 1928, shows that in the last of the fifty pieces of advice scattered across the ends of the Fridays in the calendar section of the 372-page work, the phrase “we are laborers of the mind” (“biz ise fikir amelesiyiz”) is used of the attorney. This saying positions the attorney not as a legal aristocrat standing above the people by virtue of knowledge, but as a laborer who does intellectual work, reads, re-checks and works on a person’s trouble.

The diary ties this thought to the idea that if the Code of Obligations counts attorneys among the worker class, attorneys should take pride in it. The “worker” here is not a definition of an employment relationship that would reduce the attorney’s independence; it is a historical metaphor for the pride of intellectual labor. From this historical sentence it cannot be concluded that all attorneys today automatically hold employee status. The nature of a working relationship is assessed separately; the duties of loyalty and care in a mandate are regulated in Article 506 of the Turkish Code of Obligations.

Being a laborer of the mind is not a belittling but a purifying definition. It reminds the attorney of three things:

• Knowledge is a responsibility, not a display of superiority.
• The client’s language may be scattered; it is the attorney’s job not to belittle it but to make sense of it.
• Even the most brilliant oratory does not take the place of the labor of preparation.

Paul Johann Anselm von Feuerbach’s inaugural lecture of 1804, titled Ueber Philosophie und Empirie in ihrem Verhältnisse zur positiven Rechtswissenschaft, aims to bridge the gap between legal thought and lived reality. A harsh Turkish saying is sometimes attributed to Feuerbach: “a hypertrophy of pedantry that breeds utterly ignorant yet arrogant chatterers.” Because a word-for-word counterpart of this sentence in the 1804 text cannot be verified, it cannot be used as a direct quotation. But the criticism it carries is consistent with Feuerbach’s search for the link between thought and experience and between theory and practice: A jurist gains value not through the pride of memorized concepts but through the ability to apply the abstract rule to real human life.

Max Weber offers powerful intellectual tools for understanding the formal and bureaucratic structure of modern law that provides predictability, and Jürgen Habermas for understanding the relationship among law, democratic legitimacy and communicative reason. There is no established concept called the “legal aristocracy” in the works of these two thinkers. The expression used here is an editorial criticism directed at a mechanical legalism that does not see people. The duty of the criminal defense attorney is not to put conscience in the place of the rule, but to prevent the human being from being lost within the rule.

Socrates’ Self-Defense: Choosing Not Life but the Right Way to Live

Socrates was not an attorney. When he was accused in Athens in 399 BCE of impiety and of corrupting the youth, he conducted his own defense. Moreover, Plato’s Apologia is not a word-for-word court record in today’s sense; it is a philosophical and literary source. Without stating these two limits clearly, it would not be historically accurate to proclaim Socrates the “first criminal defense attorney.”

Even so, Socrates’ self-defense is one of the most influential early archetypes of defense in Western thought. In Plato’s Apologia, Socrates chooses to say what he believes is right rather than buy his life with words pleasing to the court; he does not bring his family and children on stage as a means of eliciting pity; and he does not place the fear of death before the truth. What remains for the criminal defense attorney is not a romantic passion for death but a harder duty of character: Pleasing the decision-maker and persuading the decision-maker are not the same thing.

The Socratic archetype leaves three moral questions:

• How far can the claim to truth in a defense be bent for the sake of survival?
• Is emotion being used to make a person visible, or to disable thinking?
• Does the attorney play the role the court expects, or, while preserving respect, question an acceptance they see as wrong?

The independence of a criminal defense attorney does not always mean defiance. Sometimes independence is being able to stop at a single true sentence when everyone is expecting a dramatic speech.

The Existential Loneliness and Psychological Armor of the Criminal Defense Attorney

When a criminal defense attorney sits down at the same table with a person whom the public has declared a “monster,” a “traitor” or “guilty,” they do not do merely a legal job; against society’s moral anger they defend the idea that a human being is a subject of rights even before judgment. This is not belittling the crime. It is certainly not denying the victim’s pain. What defense says is more limited and more principled: Even when turned into an object of hatred, a human being does not cease to be a subject of the law.

The United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers state that attorneys must not be identified with their clients or their clients’ causes as a result of discharging their functions. This principle is the legal counterpart of the criminal defense attorney’s psychological armor. The attorney is not a party to the act of the person they defend, nor are they obliged to turn the public’s anger into a judgment of their own.

The idea attributed to Thomas Erskine in the context of his 1792 defense of Thomas Paine, and found in historical collections of speeches, is a warning that an attorney who refuses a defense because of a personal opinion about the accusation would be putting themselves in the place of the judge. No reliable word-for-word source has been found for the popular sentences attributed to Jacques Vergès, such as “defending the person everyone hates” and “an attorney is not the accomplice of their client.” For this reason they should be used not as slogans but as thoughts drawn from Vergès’s controversial strategy of rupture and from the UN principle.

One historical example of this loneliness is John Adams. The United States National Park Service records that Adams took on the lead defense of the British soldiers, against whom the public was enraged after the Boston Massacre of 1770. The tension between Adams’s political circle and his duty to defend the soldiers shows that the right to defense exists not only for people who are liked. His lesson of character is not to agree with the client, but to insist that the person be judged within the law and not in the court of public opinion.

One of the most striking tests of the same principle on an institutional scale is the Nuremberg trials. The historical weight of the accusations did not abolish the defendants’ right to defense. Article 16 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal (Uluslararası Askerî Mahkeme Statüsü) expressly provided for the defendant’s rights to conduct their own defense or to have the assistance of defense counsel, to present evidence in defense, and to cross-examine the witnesses for the prosecution. At its preliminary session of November 15, 1945, the Tribunal also described the work of defense counsel as “an important public service in the interests of justice.” This example shows that defense depends not on sympathy for the defendant but on the legal nature of the proceedings: However grave the accusation, the need for the right to defense does not diminish; the line separating the law from revenge becomes more visible.

Existential loneliness is experienced on three levels:

• Social loneliness: The attorney is identified with the client and is made to explain the right to defense.
• Loneliness of decision: Even if there are people they can consult, in the end the attorney bears alone, through their own professional judgment, the responsibility for a strategic choice.
• Moral loneliness: When the world the client describes and the world the case file shows diverge, the attorney alone must strike the difficult balance between loyalty and honesty.

Psychological armor is not emotionlessness. Healthy armor means not turning public anger into personal shame, the client’s pain into one’s own life, or professional courage into a compulsion to destroy oneself.

The Other Side of Criminal Defense: The Psychology of Representing Victims and Intervening Parties (katılan)

If the spirit of criminal practice is sought only in the defense of defendants, half of the profession remains in the dark. Representing a person directly affected by a serious crime, a family that has lost a loved one, a person whose sexual inviolability has been violated, or a victim who has lived for years under fear also demands its own mental resilience, ethical distance and ability to read people. Representing a victim is not the mirror-image counterpart of defense counsel on the opposite side; it is a professional field of its own, involving contact with trauma, rebuilding trust, and turning anger into a meaningful demand within the law.

In criminal procedure, the designations “victim,” “complainant,” “person harmed by the offense” and “intervening party” do not carry the same legal meaning. The purpose of this section is not to teach these procedural distinctions, but to make visible the psychological and moral tension that representing a person who takes part in the proceedings under one of these designations produces in the attorney.

The United Nations Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power takes as its basis that victims be treated with compassion and respect for their dignity, that they have access to the mechanisms of justice, and that their views be considered at appropriate stages. Recommendation CM/Rec(2023)2 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe also offers a current framework for the rights of victims of crime, their access to services, their protection and the prevention of secondary victimization. These principles show that the role of a victim’s counsel is not limited to asking for the heaviest penalty. The counsel’s first duty is not to drown out the voice of a person who has experienced trauma with their own oratory, but to protect that person’s will, safety and meaningful participation in the proceedings.

Listening to Trauma Is Not Speaking in the Victim’s Place

Trauma can affect memory and the order of narration. A person may be unable to tell events chronologically, may not remember some details, may fall silent out of shame, or may return to the same point again and again. A qualified victim’s counsel turns this neither into automatic proof of truthfulness nor into a sign of unreliability. They listen to the account calmly; separate out the legally important points; clarify missing parts with questions that do not wound again; and preserve the person’s say over their own story.

When the attorney’s strong voice takes the place of the victim’s voice, representation can turn into paternalism. Not every choice of the client can be set aside as a consequence of trauma; likewise, pressing a person to recount intimate details again and again only because it is thought to strengthen the case is not advocacy. Protecting the victim does not mean turning them back into an object unable to decide; it means widening the space in which they can decide safely and with information.

Turning Anger into Method Without Denying the Desire for Revenge

The anger of the victim of a serious crime, or of a relative of the deceased, is a morally understandable reaction. It is not the attorney’s duty to condemn this anger, nor to amplify it and turn it into professional energy. Anger must be turned into an effective investigation, the proper collection and discussion of evidence, an assessment of the need for safety, the redress of harm and a demand for a fair judgment. The language of revenge can offer short-lived satisfaction; but it can damage the victim’s recovery, the credibility of the proceedings and the attorney’s independent judgment.

For this reason the character of a victim’s counsel must resist two extremes at once:

• Insensitive technicalism: Reducing pain merely to file information and a source of evidence.
• Identification with anger: Turning the client’s rightful grief into the attorney’s personal enmity.

A good victim’s counsel does not belittle pain; but neither do they allow pain to take the place of the law. The presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial are not the opposites of victims’ rights. A reliable judgment can be reached only in a process in which evidence is tested within the law, the defense is effective and the victim’s dignity is protected. The victim’s demand for justice and the fundamental rights of the suspect or defendant are not values that cancel each other out; they are two heavy trusts that criminal justice must carry at the same time.

The Secondary Trauma of a Victim’s Counsel and the Professional Limit

Photographs of killings, narratives of sexual violence, the abuse suffered by children, grieving families and stories of loss listened to over and over can leave a mark in the attorney’s inner world. Denying this effect is not professionalism. Research shows that continuous professional exposure to traumatic narratives can be associated with secondary trauma, burnout and psychological strain in legal professionals. For an attorney to accompany a client well, they need to notice their own emotional limits; to seek support from colleagues or experts when necessary; and not to carry the pain of every case into their private life.

The mature sentence of representing a victim is this: “I will not diminish your pain; but I will not surrender it to a language of revenge that consumes you either. I will make your voice heard, protect your will and carry your demand for justice within the law.”

The Dialectic of Cognitive Empathy and Professional Distance

A criminal defense attorney cannot build a defense without understanding the person; but if they identify completely with the person they understand, they cannot make a critical assessment. This is the basic tension of the profession: To be empathetic enough to draw near and distant enough to see.

The short counsels that have settled into Faruk Erem’s professional memory convey this balance with extraordinary intensity:

“You will not blame, you will not get angry, you will not cry either. But all of it must be inside you.”

“Scratch the culprit and a human being emerges from underneath.”

“Look into the eyes of the culprit before you, in a friendly way.”

The word “culprit” in these sayings should be read not as a call for prejudgment before trial but within Erem’s period-specific manner of expression. The essential thought is this: The attorney does not deny blame, anger and grief; nor does the attorney fall under their rule. They feel the emotion inside and turn it into method outside.

Cognitive empathy requires four abilities together:

• Understanding how a person’s fear affects their narration.
• Noticing the sentence that cannot be formed because of shame, trauma or powerlessness.
• Grasping the meaning of what is told in the narrator’s world without immediately confirming it.
• Not hesitating to ask about a contradiction while preserving human closeness.

In a professional essay attributed to Refik İnce, referring to the 1935 Izmir Bar Association Journal (İzmir Barosu Dergisi), the attorney is described as the “remedy of the wounded heart” of a person and as “the repairer of a broken self-respect (izzet-i nefs).” Because the original archive copy is not directly accessible, this expression should be used with the secondary-source route indicated. The metaphor of repair here does not make the attorney a savior or a therapist. The attorney’s role is not to live in the person’s place, but to support the person’s capacity to be a subject through honest information they can understand and respectful communication.

Empathy has a shadow side as well. An attorney who identifies with the client may fail to see the fact that is against the client; may make the victim’s pain invisible; may regard every unfavorable decision as a personal defeat. Professional distance, however, is not coldness. Distance is the ethical gap that keeps love or compassion from occupying the mind.

Being Able to Direct Doubt at Oneself Too: The Cognitive Blind Spots of the Criminal Defense Attorney

The criminal defense attorney is trained to question the investigation’s thesis, the witness’s account and the court’s preconception. But real intellectual independence does not end there. The attorney must be able to accept that the defense or representation thesis they themselves have built may also be wrong, incomplete or premature. A mind that directs doubt only at the other side is a partisan; a mind that can direct doubt at its own opinion as well is truly independent.

Cognitive bias does not mean deliberate distortion or professional bad faith. It means the systematic errors that can arise from the shortcuts the human mind uses to reduce uncertainty quickly, to turn scattered information into a coherent story and to preserve its earlier opinion. Legal training and experience can reduce this risk; but they do not make a person infallible. Current experimental studies that also involve legal professionals show that the order in which information is presented and earlier assessments can influence later opinions. For this reason professional experience is not a reason to reject the possibility of bias; it is a responsibility to build a method to monitor it.

The main blind spots in criminal defense are these:

• Anchoring to the first account: Accepting the story offered by the client or the first record as unchangeable fact rather than as a mental starting point.
• Confirmation bias: Magnifying documents and statements that support the thesis one has built while treating facts that do not fit as secondary or unreliable.
• Availability effect: Considering more probable a possibility that is repeated often on social media, has footage or is emotionally striking, merely because it is easily recalled.
• Over-identification with the client: Moving from understanding the person’s fear and anger to making all of their interpretations the attorney’s own opinion.
• Desired-outcome bias: Placing the expectation of acquittal, trial without detention or conviction ahead of the real probability that the evidence may indicate.
• Professional overconfidence: Taking earlier successes, high experience or the effort invested in the file as proof that the current thesis is correct.
• Sunk-cost effect: Being unable to give up a view defended for months even when new evidence weakens it.

These blind spots are not peculiar to the defense of defendants. A victim’s counsel, identifying with the client’s pain, may regard every contradiction as an attack; defense counsel may explain every statement that does not fit the defense thesis by bad faith. In both cases human closeness narrows the ability to test the truth.

Self-Auditing Tools of the Independent Mind

A good criminal defense attorney does not abandon intuition; they turn it into a testable hypothesis. For this they:

• ask the question “What fact could show this thesis to be wrong?” at the beginning of the file and again after every important development.
• separate fact, interpretation and assumption in their working notes.
• look for reasonable explanations and counter-possibilities not only for evidence that appears favorable but also for evidence that appears unfavorable.
• if there is a difference between the client’s first account and later documents, clarify it rather than conceal it.
• while preserving the limits of confidentiality, may ask for a “counter-thesis” assessment from a colleague who has made no emotional investment in the file.
• regard changing their view in the face of new information not as weakness but as professional honesty.
• measure the strength of their own opinion not by how much they believe it, but by how well it withstands opposing possibilities.

That a defense narrative is beautiful, coherent and humane does not mean it is necessarily true. Likewise, a fact that is disturbing at first glance does not necessarily refute the whole defense. Intellectual mastery is not closing the file onto a single story at the earliest possible moment; it is the ability to keep alternative explanations open with discipline until the moment of decision. A great criminal defense attorney knows how to test their own thesis not to remain loyal to it, but to remain loyal to the truth.

Discernment of People, Intuition and Psychological Sensitivity in the Courtroom

A great criminal defense attorney reads not only the text but the setting. They notice why a witness slowed down at a question, at which word the client fell silent, at which point the judge took notes, and which claim the opposing side was compelled to repeat. This ability is not a mystical power of “seeing lies”; it is the skill of attention, experience, knowledge of context and controlled hypothesis-building.

A scientific limit is necessary here. Averting the gaze, sweating, fidgeting with the hands or a trembling voice is not by itself an indicator of lying. A scientific review of nonverbal cues to deception seriously questions the approach of building a reliable lie detector out of nonverbal behavior. Anxiety, trauma, culture, neurodiversity and the pressure of the courtroom setting can produce the same behaviors. For this reason body language is not evidence but the possibility of a new and careful question.

The healthy form of discernment of people is as follows:

The “Black-Robed Men” (“Kara Cübbeliler”) study, which examines the 1935 interviews in the newspaper Akşam, relates that Sadi Rıza Dağ put on his tortoiseshell-looking glasses when his turn to speak came and that an intense silence formed in the courtroom. The same chain of sources also contains anecdotes of a defense that touched the human grief of a presiding judge who had recently lost his son, and of being left alone with a hookah after the hearing. These are the descriptions of period journalism; they should not be presented as facts verified by an independent court record. Even so, what is seen in the portrait is important: Sadi Rıza Dağ produces effect not from loudness of voice but from rhythm, waiting and human context.

The same period source relates that Mustafa Hayri Bey, known by the nickname “Crazy” (“Deli”), would get up from his bed at night and rehearse his defense aloud in the dark. This anecdote, too, is not a clinical personality diagnosis. The line of character it shows is the perfectionist mind that tries to control uncertainty through repetition and preparation. This intensity can be valuable; but sleeplessness and self-consumption are not professional superiority.

Discernment of people is not a narcissistic claim that the attorney “has figured everybody out”; it is the epistemic humility that knows a person cannot easily be figured out.

The Intellectual Backbone: Courage, Unbending Will and Refusal to Bow

Courage is important in the character of a criminal defense attorney; but when courage is confused with aggression, both professional standing and the client’s interest can suffer. Real courage is not changing one’s tone according to the size of the power; not presenting a legal demand as a favor; defending the presumption of innocence in the midst of popular reaction; and, when necessary, being able to say “no” even to a client’s demand that is contrary to the law.

The portrait of Kenan Öner in the 1935 interviews foregrounds the idea that an attorney should make a demand from the court based on right, not a plea. Since the long and categorical formulation attributed to him cannot be verified word for word from a primary source, the essence of the thought is conveyed here instead of a direct quotation. In Öner’s professional character, self-respect, directness and a will not to shrink before authority are prominent. The shadow of this strength is directness turning into rigidity and a demand of right turning into personal conflict.

The period account concerning Cemil Nazif relates that, during a trial in Sirkeci, amid gunfire, he did not abandon his post and took on the defense of persons reported to have been ill-treated. Since the details of the event cannot be fully verified by an independent primary archival document, it cannot be written as an epic of heroism. Even so, the character the record shows is not fearlessness but the ability to continue functioning in spite of fear.

Hans Litten’s examination of Adolf Hitler as a witness in the 1931 Edenpalast trial is documented by the records of the German Resistance Memorial Center and the Buchenwald Memorial. Litten’s courage shows not in loud defiance but in a question prepared in advance on the document and the contradiction. His detention in 1933, his years of ill-treatment and his death in Dachau in 1938 show that courage in defense can carry a real, not a romantic, price.

Courage has four forms:

• Physical courage: Being able to continue the duty under threat.
• Intellectual courage: Saying that an established assumption may be wrong.
• Moral courage: Declaring even to a beloved person that their demand contrary to the law will not be carried out.
• Emotional courage: Not denying that one is afraid, tired or in need of help.

Courage in Defense: Professional Ethics and an Independent Stance in the Face of State Power

Law cannot be practiced with fear. This saying does not claim that the attorney will not feel fear. It opposes fear determining which right will be defended and which unlawfulness will be ignored. When a person’s freedom is under discussion, if concern for protecting the attorney’s professional position, the expectations of their circle or their relations with powerful offices comes ahead of the defense, the problem is not merely a lack of personal courage. The independent function of defense is being damaged.

Courage is the strength of character that makes it possible to use legal knowledge. Saying the contradiction in the file is as necessary as seeing it; standing against an unlawfulness is as necessary as knowing it. Calculating which sentence will provoke a reaction cannot take the place of considering whether that sentence is legally necessary. The attorney’s responsibility is not to make a rightful objection depend on the pleasure of the authority in front of them.

Making a Person’s Rights Visible Before the Might of the State

In criminal proceedings the state holds the instruments of investigation and sanction. The person, often without even fully knowing the language of the file, faces this power. The value of independent defense appears in making this inequality visible and in demanding that public power be used within the limits of the law. That an act is done in the name of the state is not in itself proof that the act is lawful.

The principle of a state governed by the rule of law that respects human rights in Article 2 of the Constitution, the safeguards for restrictions on fundamental rights in Article 13 and the freedom to seek legal remedies in Article 36 must be read together. Defense cannot be regarded as an area of tolerance the executive, the investigating authority or the court grants to the person. The constitutional framework establishes a rights order that also binds public power itself.

The basic danger of an autocratic understanding of governance is that it sees criticism of authority as an attack on order, a demand of right as disobedience, and defense not as a public function to be protected but as an obstacle to be overcome. In the face of such an understanding, in which the state is exalted and human rights are treated as secondary, the attorney’s professional measure gains still more importance. The task of defense cannot be to silence a person’s objection in the name of protecting the state’s prestige. To demand that the state remain within the law is to defend the dignity of the citizen and of the human being.

This assessment does not rest on the claim that every public official acts in bad faith. On the contrary, it rests on the thought that safeguards cannot be left to the goodwill of individuals. Independent defense serves the honest judge, the prosecutor who performs their duty in accordance with the law, and the formation of a fair decision. An institution’s standing draws strength not from its errors being unspeakable but from its errors being open to discussion within the law.

The Measure of Respect Toward Judges and Prosecutors

For the attorney to behave respectfully before the court does not require giving up questioning the reasoning of a decision. Listening carefully to the prosecutor’s claim is not accepting the claim as a proven fact. The proceedings have different functions; this division of functions does not turn the attorney into a subordinate of the prosecuting or deciding authority. Article 1 of the Attorneyship Law defines independent defense among the constituent elements of the judiciary.

Article 17 of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the Union of Turkish Bar Associations (TBB) takes mutual respect as its basis in relations with judges and prosecutors. This mutuality is important. Conduct that injures the attorney’s person, professional honor or the function of defense cannot be normalized by invoking the weight of the office.

A principled stance includes explaining the reason for an objection when one is interrupted, asking that an unmet request be entered in the record, contesting a decision seen as unreasoned through the appropriate legal route, and, where the concrete conditions exist, activating statutory safeguards. Both turning the judge into a personal enemy and swallowing a legally necessary objection in the name of courtesy corrupt professional judgment. The measure is not the loudness of the voice but the basis, purpose, accuracy and consistency of the objection.

Remaining Independent Toward the Client and One’s Own Circle Too

An attorney who appears courageous before authority has not completed the test of independence if they depend on the client’s money, political circle or the applause of the public. Professional ethics requires that the attorney be able to say no to their own side when necessary. An expectation that false documents be prepared, a witness be steered, professional secrecy be exposed or pressure be put on the opposing side cannot be fulfilled on the ground of loyalty.

The same independence is sought in political and social affinities. The sensitivity the attorney shows while defending the rights of a person close to their own worldview must be preserved just as much toward someone they find distant. The weight of human rights does not depend on the right-holder thinking as we do. Defending a person the public dislikes does not mean adopting the act attributed to them.

Honestly delivering bad news to the client also takes courage. Concealing the unfavorable evidence, the legal risk or the weak point of the defense in the file may offer short-lived comfort; but it takes away the person’s ability to make an informed decision. The attorney’s credibility comes not from voicing hopeful sentences in every meeting but from honestly showing the distance between hope and reality.

Not Identifying the Defense with the Accusation

When an attorney is stigmatized because of their client, the social ground of defense erodes. If the suspicion directed at the attorney grows as the weight of an accusation grows, defense is weakened in precisely the files that most need safeguards. This approach makes it easier for a person to be isolated before the proceedings even begin and for the accusation to be accepted without discussion.

The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, in Principles 16–18, address the attorney’s ability to perform their professional duty without intimidation and improper interference, their protection against threats arising from their duty, and their not being identified with their client or their client’s cause. These concern not the attorney’s personal privilege but the conditions of effective legal assistance. These principles should not be presented as a provision of domestic law or as a convention that takes effect automatically with respect to Türkiye.

Of course, an attorney’s personal conduct contrary to the law cannot hide behind a professional title. But confusing a concrete personal act with lawful defense activity opens the door, in the name of accountability, to the punishment of defense. The distinction must be drawn not through the title but through the conduct attributed and its evidence.

The Institutional Guarantee of Courage: Not Leaving the Attorney Alone

An order that entrusts defense only to the resilience of heroic attorneys is incomplete. Professional courage is necessary; but it does not take the place of the state’s duty of protection, the solidarity of bar associations and the responsibility of adjudicating authorities to make room for defense. Merely telling a young attorney “don’t be afraid” gives no right to leave them unprepared and unsupported in the face of pressure.

The Convention for the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer, which the Council of Europe adopted on March 12, 2025 and opened for signature on May 13, 2025, makes threats and interference directed at attorneys and professional organizations a subject of international protection. This development shows that the security of defense remains a concrete institutional matter today. The adoption of the document and its being binding on a particular state are separate legal stages; no conclusion about its entry into force with respect to Türkiye is drawn here.

The bar association standing beside its colleague, the professional incident being put on record, legal support being provided when necessary, and the young colleague being able to work with experienced attorneys are the sustainable conditions of courage. Hierarchy within the office must also fit this understanding. Seniority gives no authority to silence a young attorney’s legal objection. A professional culture that demands independence from the state must also protect its colleague’s dignity and thought within its own office.

Courage in defense is being able to say the word the law asks of a person, however powerful the addressee of that word may be. Professional ethics is using this power while protecting human dignity, truthfulness and the client’s legitimate interest.

Passion for Work, Memento Mori and Secondary Trauma

Criminal defense is a mental pursuit that does not fit entirely into a timesheet. The file’s question may return while walking, while eating, or at night as one drifts off to sleep. Mustafa Hayri’s night rehearsal is a historical anecdote of this professional occupation of the mind. The approach of thinking of the end from the beginning, emphasized in Leslie Cuthbert’s book 365 Daily Advocacy Tips, tries to discipline the same passion: The attorney should not chase every detail without knowing in their mind where they want to arrive.

The anecdote about Faruk Erem’s passion for work, that he “associated his need for rest with the approach of death,” is reported in secondary sources with reference to Prof. Uğur Alacakaptan; since it cannot be confirmed by an accessible primary record, it cannot be used as a definitive saying. Even so, the devotion the anecdote points to is consistent with the course of Erem’s life. But from the standpoint of today’s professional ethics a correction is needed: Not resting is not a virtue; resting in order to be able to work continuously and healthily is a professional responsibility.

Erem’s far stronger and accessible account concerning the death penalty is that, at an execution he witnessed in his youth, he held the hand of the condemned man. The memory recounted by the Faruk Erem Foundation and the record referring to a 1992 Ankara Bar Association interview describe the mark left on Erem’s thinking about punishment and death by his feeling the hand grow cold during the execution. This scene closes the gulf between the abstract word “punishment” and the irreversible end of a human body. This is the jurist’s memento mori: At the end of the thought of every grave sentence they pass, there is a mortal human being.

Yet continuous contact with human suffering does not come without cost. A systematic review of secondary trauma in legal professionals reveals the relationship of professional exposure to traumatic narratives with trauma symptoms, depression, burnout and loss of functioning. The psychological armor of the criminal defense attorney must be double-layered for this reason: It must withstand both the anger of society and the residue another person’s pain leaves in one’s own soul.

Healthy devotion:

• regards work as one of the meanings of life, not the whole of life;
• takes the client’s pain seriously and does not turn it into one’s own trauma;
• esteems intense preparation and does not count sleeplessness as a badge of the profession;
• sees asking for help not as weakness but as quality assurance;
• takes ownership of the case and does not make the outcome the sole measure of personal worth.

Carrying Another’s Truth: The Psychological Weight of the Duty to Keep Secrets

The loneliness of the criminal defense attorney arises not only from standing against society. Sometimes loneliness arises from knowing the heaviest information belonging to another and being unable to tell it as one’s own story. The attorney may hear the fear, shame, remorse, detail of private life, or information the person thinks may incriminate them, which the person hides from family, friends and the public. The weight of this information passes to the attorney; its ownership does not. A client’s secret is not the attorney’s narrative capital, conversation material, social media content or tool of professional promotion.

Article 36 of Attorneyship Law No. 1136 prohibits attorneys from disclosing matters they learn by reason of their duties. Article 37 of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the Union of Turkish Bar Associations makes this link still more visible: The attorney also treats as secret the information learned from a person who applied to them for a matter they have not yet taken on; the duty to keep secrets does not end with leaving the profession. The decision of the TBB Disciplinary Board dated February 20, 2018, File No. 2017/721 E. and Decision No. 2018/36 K., expressly emphasizes that even information learned over a wide span of time in the course of the duty must be protected and that this duty is one of the fundamental guarantees of trust in the legal profession.

Secrets Test the Attorney’s Character in Silence

Keeping secrets is most often not merely a dramatic moment of “disclosing or not disclosing.” The real test is everyday and invisible: not recounting details of the file at home, not making the client identifiable while building a success story, not sharing unnecessary information in conversation with colleagues, thinking about privacy when uploading documents to digital tools, and not turning the client’s secret into a means of pressure even in the attorney’s own dispute over fees or reputation.

This silence can both mature and wear down the attorney. For the human mind wants to be relieved by sharing a heavy piece of information. The attorney, however, cannot make another’s life the price of their own relief. Some files close when the hearing ends; some sentences remain in the attorney’s memory for years. Professional character means not mistaking everything one remembers for a right to speak.

Confidentiality Is Not a Sentence to Emotional Isolation

The duty to keep secrets does not mean the attorney can receive no support at all. Professional solidarity, division of duties within the office, a conversation in the nature of supervision or psychological support can be pursued on condition that information is shared only to the extent necessary, that identity and identifying details are filtered out where possible, and that the limits of privacy are preserved. The basic question here is this: Is the shared information truly necessary for the quality of the help, or is the attorney telling it merely to lighten their own burden?

The psychological weight of keeping secrets tests three qualities of character:

• Self-restraint: Accepting that knowing does not confer the authority to disclose.
• Loyalty: Protecting another’s privacy even after the representation relationship has ended.
• Humility: Not turning what the client has lived through into the attorney’s story of heroism.

The credibility of a criminal defense attorney is built not only by the words they say in court but also by what they know how not to say. If the client can tell the attorney everything, the defense or representation can be built soundly; if the client thinks that what is told will be used against them tomorrow, the door of the relationship that opens onto the truth closes. For this reason keeping secrets is not merely individual loyalty but an institutional condition of the right to defense and of trust in the administration of justice.

The Architecture of Persuasion: Ethos, Logos, Pathos and the Concise Word

A criminal defense attorney’s word carries not only knowledge; it carries character as well. The court sees not only what the attorney says but also how they relate to the facts, how they behave at a point they do not know, and whether they avoid what appears against them. Persuasion is therefore three-layered:

• Ethos: The attorney’s credibility, consistency and professional character.
• Logos: The reasonable link between claim, fact and conclusion.
• Pathos: Making visible the real effect of the file on the human being without paralyzing thought.

This triad was not Cicero’s invention; the basic conceptual framework rests on Aristotle’s Rhetoric. Cicero, for his part, combined, with great effect, narration of events, character, probability and style in Roman judicial oratory. The defense of Sextus Roscius is an important example in which the young Cicero, in a murder accusation carrying political risk, worked together on interest, fear and the possibility of an alternative perpetrator. The question “Cui bono?” should likewise not be presented as a formula invented by Cicero; it is the short expression of the inquiry “who benefited?” in the Roman tradition of thought and adjudication.

The 1928 Bar Diary places the attorney’s “a few reasoned and convincing words” (“birkaç müdellel ve mukni söz”) above long literary orations. (Müdellel means reasoned and well-founded; mukni means convincing.) The KISS approach in Leslie Cuthbert’s 365 Daily Advocacy Tips likewise stresses keeping the question short and simple, the principle of “thinking of the end from the beginning” and the link between psychology and rhetoric. This approach is not driving literature out of the defense. Literary power is valuable only when it condenses thought; when it covers the absence of thought, it turns into spectacle.

The principle “Do not ask a question whose answer you do not know,” among Irving Younger’s “Ten Commandments of Cross-Examination,” is also a product of the same self-restraint. It should not be forgotten that the principle is a strategic rule, not an absolute one: The attorney may sometimes ask a question if they can benefit from either of the two possible answers or if the answer is of no importance. The essential thought is not to turn the hearing into a stage for randomly discovering unknown facts.

The questions F. Lee Bailey put to Mark Fuhrman in the O.J. Simpson case are a historical example of how cross-examination can bring a witness’s credibility and the claim of racial prejudice to the center of a case; the hearing transcript is accessible. But Bailey’s personality cannot be hallowed by his skill at questioning alone. The 2014 decision of the Maine Supreme Court contains details concerning his not being admitted to the Maine Bar following an earlier professional disciplinary process. The Bailey portrait therefore teaches a two-sided lesson: Technical brilliance does not take the place of ethical character; a great line of questioning does not automatically make a whole professional life exemplary.

The density of written thought in continental Europe and the controlled questioning technique of the Anglo-American trial culture are not rivals of one another. A competent criminal defense attorney is both the thinker of the file and the director of the room; but the aim of directing is not to show oneself, but to make visible in the right order what the decision-maker needs to see.

From Preparing the File to the Hearing: Testing Courage Against Knowledge and Evidence

The character of defense takes concrete form in the invisible work done on the file. An attorney who wants to speak strongly against authority must first know the limit of their own knowledge. A defense that cannot tell which fact rests on a document, which conclusion is interpretation and which possibility has not yet been investigated is fragile, however courageous it may look. Preparation is the verifiable foundation of professional self-confidence.

Reading the File Independently of the First Account

What the client tells is a beginning; it does not by itself constitute the whole of the event. The indictment is likewise a document of allegation. Rather than surrendering at the outset to either of these two narratives, the defense should evaluate together the time, persons, documents, contradictions and insufficiently investigated points of the event. Can a link be established between the legal elements of the allegation and the evidence said to support it? Does a conclusion rest on certain knowledge, on inference or on habit? Is there another explanation for a fact that appears unfavorable?

Prof. Dr. Erdener Yurtcan’s emphasis, in a record of a professional meeting published by the Istanbul Bar Association (İstanbul Barosu), that “Above all, an attorney must examine their file well,” places this labor at the center of the profession. The meeting record shows that knowledge of the file cannot be thought of apart from the struggle for freedom. Mastering a detail sometimes does what a long speech of principle cannot: It concretely tests the basis of the allegation.

Good preparation also includes meeting the unfavorable evidence without hiding it. When an attorney selects only the parts that support their own thesis, they have turned confirmation bias into a working method. Investigating the source, context, reliability and meaning of a record that appears unfavorable, and changing the initial defense assumption if necessary, is intellectual courage. Loyalty to the first idea cannot take the place of loyalty to the client.

Seeing the Limit of Evidence as Well as Its Strength

The technical appearance of evidence does not make it beyond dispute by itself. When, from which device and by what method a digital file was obtained; how its integrity and attribution were assessed; which question the method used in the report can answer, must be clarified. The certainty in the language of a report may not be the same as the certainty the data actually carries.

This approach does not require regarding all technical evidence as suspect. Nor is the attorney’s task to behave as though they were an expert in the technical matter. It is to frame the legal question correctly, to benefit from expert opinion when necessary, and to compare the report’s conclusions with their bases. The possibility, in Article 67/6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK), of obtaining a scientific opinion from an expert has meaning in this respect. The assessment at the hearing, in turn, must be considered together with the provisions of the CMK on evidence and proof.

The expression “investigating evidence in favor of the defense” used here does not mean producing evidence or fabricating the truth. It means lawful investigation of the existing event, assessment of the relevant records and making visible the facts that may be favorable. Teaching a witness what to say, altering a document or filling a gap with an imaginary event cannot be regarded as a method of defense.

Naming the Legal Outcome Correctly

The moral seriousness of defense also shows in the accuracy of legal terms. For example, the judgment discussed under Article 223/2-e CMK where it has not been established that the offense was committed by the defendant is acquittal; this cannot automatically be called “dismissal of the case” (“davanın düşmesi”). Dismissal (düşme) is another type of judgment that the same article ties to separate conditions. Assessments made at the investigation stage must also not be confused with the judgments rendered at the end of prosecution.

This distinction is not dry verbal punctiliousness. A wrong term can cause the client to misunderstand what to expect and the defense’s request to become unclear. The attorney’s thinking becomes clear to the extent that legal possibilities are distinguished from one another.

Clarity, Measure and Timing at the Hearing

Knowing the file does not mean saying everything in the file with equal weight. The decisive question of defense is the link between the fact to be discussed and the legal result requested. Reading a document is not enough; what the document changes must be explained. Pointing out a contradiction is not enough; why the contradiction matters for the judgment must be shown.

The possibility of putting questions directly, regulated by Article 201 CMK, serves this clarity of preparation. The aim of the question is not to injure a person’s dignity or to display superiority to the room, but to test information that helps clarify the event. The questioning techniques of other legal systems cannot be carried over as ready-made templates without regard to the rules of Turkish proceedings and the rights of the person.

Asking that the necessary investigation be carried out and that the facilities necessary for the defense be provided is a professional responsibility. Initiatives aimed merely at prolonging the case are different. Article 22 of the TBB Rules of Professional Conduct also uses the measure of being necessary for the defense. This limit permits neither abandoning a right for the sake of finishing quickly nor treating delay as a strategy in itself.

Preparation and courage meet here: When the attorney knows what they are saying and why they are saying it, they do not shrink their objection according to the weight of the office; they build it according to the needs of the file. The professional stance becomes visible in a considered question, verified information, a clear reasoning and a request that is followed through.

Where Philosophy Is Tested: The Night-Time Statement, Questioning and the Courtroom

Professional character is not measured only in a quiet office, with all the documents on the desk and time to think. The real test begins in moments when time narrows, fear rises and everyone expects an immediate answer from the attorney. The short scenes below are not a procedural guide or an instruction for a specific file. The aim is to show how the psychological and ethical qualities discussed in the article take flesh in the practice of Turkish criminal procedure.

The Statement to Law Enforcement at 3:00 a.m.: The Art of Slowing Down

In a law enforcement unit past midnight, the suspect may be tired, frightened and have lost the sense of time. Relatives wait for a phone call; officials want the procedure completed; the suspect, thinking they will get out sooner, may tend to assent to sentences they do not understand. In this scene the psychological resilience of the criminal defense attorney shows not through a raised voice but through not surrendering to the speed of the setting.

The attorney first listens. They observe the client’s physical and mental state, whether the client is in a condition to give an account and whether the client really understands the question. They do not let the haste infect them; but neither do they put on a show of artificial calm. When necessary they ask that a sentence be reformulated, that a misunderstood point be clarified, or that professional space be preserved to speak with the client. The silence here is not passivity. Sometimes the first success of defense is not producing a new story but preventing a sentence that cannot be taken back from being uttered under fear.

Questioning on a Request for Pretrial Detention: Turning Panic into Measured Speech

When it is learned that the client will appear before the judge on a request for pretrial detention, images of a closed door, separation from family, losing one’s job and uncertainty appear in the client’s mind before any legal assessment. The attorney, too, feels the pressure of time. But a defense that carries the client’s panic as it is into the courtroom may lose the most important points in emotional noise.

The mature criminal defense attorney organizes fear without belittling it. They give the client information about the process clearly enough for the client to understand it; they make no promise of a definite outcome; they present the facts that need to be told, the personal circumstances and the legal objection without mixing them together. Instead of saying every detail, they choose what is truly distinguishing at the moment of decision. Oratory in a moment of crisis is not the ability to talk a great deal; it is the discipline of bringing thought out of fear intact.

Asking Questions at the Hearing: Testing the Statement, Not Crushing the Witness

The tradition of “cross-examination” in Anglo-American proceedings is not the same as the order of questioning in Turkish criminal procedure. Although the current text of the Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271 contains a provision on direct questions by defense counsel and the representative, calling Turkish practice altogether an Anglo-American cross-examination may be misleading. The correct professional description is therefore: putting questions directly, testing a witness’s or expert’s statement and making contradictions visible.

Discernment of people is not a mystical intuition here either. The attorney does not draw a judgment from a witness’s averting the gaze; they investigate the source of the statement, the conditions of seeing and hearing, the timeline, the differences from the earlier account and the relation to concrete evidence. The aim of the question is not to humiliate the witness but to enable the decision-maker to assess the statement’s credibility. Unprepared aggression damages not the witness but the credibility of the defense.

Silence at the Hearing: Self-Restraint, Not a Void

The criminal defense attorney sometimes feels pressure to answer every claim at once. Yet needless repetition can weaken a strong point; a reaction given in anger can shift the center of the file to a personal conflict. The silence in the portrait of Sadi Rıza Dağ and the teaching of “a few reasoned and convincing words” of the 1928 Bar Diary find their practical counterpart here. When the attorney’s silence arises not from unpreparedness but from knowing what should be put on record and at what moment it should be said, it is an active element of defense.

The common verdict of these scenes is this: Criminal procedure is a field of pressure that makes the attorney’s character visible. Knowledge determines what will be said; character, how it will be said under pressure; and ethics, which word must never be said at all.

The Composure of the Criminal Defense Attorney in the Digital Court of Public Opinion

In the past, the criminal defense attorney faced newspaper headlines, crowds or political pressure. Today, short videos that can reach millions of people within seconds, clipped audio recordings, anonymous accounts, hashtag campaigns and algorithmic anger have been added to these. An image can circulate as though it were the whole file, an allegation as a judgment, and a hashtag as a social conviction. The digital court of public opinion does not collect evidence; it most often shortens context, punishes uncertainty and rewards the fastest moral verdict.

This pressure does not target only the suspect or defendant. The victim’s identity, intimate images, private life and traumatic account can also be spread without consent; the victim may be pushed to explain what they went through again and again. The criminal defense attorney’s digital ethical duty is therefore two-sided: not to turn the person under criminal accusation into an object of prejudgment and not to turn the victim into a symbol consumed by public curiosity.

The Constitutional Court has examined in various decisions the effect on the presumption of innocence of the language used by public authorities about ongoing investigations and prosecutions. In the Halk Radyo ve Televizyon Yayıncılık A.Ş. decision, it is emphasized that broadcasts concerning ongoing criminal proceedings must use a language that does not harm the presumption of innocence. In the decision in Application No. 2017/34336 as well, the boundary between statements made to the public and the impression that a person is guilty is discussed. These decisions were not issued directly about “X/Twitter courts”; but the reasoning that protects the presumption of innocence helps in understanding why prejudgment in the digital environment can create legal and psychological pressure.

The Attorney Must Not Try the Case on Social Media

Answering a social media attack with a social media attack may bring visibility in the short term; but it can damage the file, the client’s privacy and the credibility of the defense. The attorney’s task is not to produce the most-shared sentence of the day’s agenda but to protect the client’s legitimate interest. For this reason:

• Confidential or private information in the file must not be disclosed in order to win public support.
• An allegation not yet verified must not be presented as established fact in order to discredit the other side.
• The victim’s identity, image and private life must not be exposed under the name of a “defense strategy.”
• A statement made on behalf of the suspect or defendant must not turn into a guarantee of outcome, into pressure on judicial authorities, or into putting evidence to a social media vote.
• The attorney must separate their own visibility from the client’s legal interest.

Silence Is Not Always Passivity, and Visibility Is Not Always Defense

In some files it may be necessary to give the public limited and accurate information, to correct false information or to remind the public of a person’s fundamental rights. But the purpose, scope, timing and authority of the communication must be thought through in advance. The limit of disclosure must be agreed with the client; the effect of every sentence used on confidentiality, personal data, the soundness of the investigation, victims’ rights and defense strategy must be assessed. Crisis and reputation management cannot take the place of criminal procedure; it may assist it, subordinate to it and within ethical limits.

Psychological armor against digital lynching also requires the attorney to learn not to answer every accusation on their phone screen. A constant stream of notifications can enlarge anger and the perception of threat and narrow judgment. The skilled attorney does not make the speed of the news agenda the working rhythm of the file. They keep the distance between the trending narrative and the fact that can be discussed in the file; while insulating the client from the anger of the algorithm, they protect themselves too from the intoxication of visibility.

Nâzım’s “Human Hand”: Loyalty, Friendship and Long Memory in Defense

The human meaning of criminal defense is sometimes visible more durably in a poem than in a court decision. Nâzım Hikmet’s poem “How Are You?” (“Nasılsın?”) is one of the strongest examples of this. The initial letters of the poem’s lines form the name “İRFAN EMİN”; the addressee of the poem is Nâzım Hikmet’s attorney and friend İrfan Emin Kösemihaloğlu. According to the accessible account of the trial, Kösemihaloğlu took part as Nâzım Hikmet’s defense counsel and made the defense in the trial at the Istanbul 2nd Criminal Court of First Instance (İstanbul 2. Asliye Ceza Mahkemesi) on May 6, 1931. The poem’s image of the “human hand” expresses the plainest yet heaviest quality of criminal defense: the hand that does not withdraw when the crowd of good days has dispersed, when the iron doors have closed and when the person’s name has been left to society’s anger.

Instead of quoting the whole poem, it suffices to recall the short address at the center of the relationship:

“Human hand that I forgot in my good days / How are you?”

These two lines are not merely a personal thank-you. They make visible three values that defense carries beyond the representation relationship:

• Loyalty: Staying in contact with a person even when their reputation has been shaken and their circle has emptied.
• Honor: Not seeing the person under criminal accusation only as a “file,” a “defendant” or a public symbol.
• Memory: Not forgetting, even when the hearing has ended, the injustice, the pain and the human story that were lived.

A historical distinction is necessary here. The attorney to whom the poem “How Are You?” is dedicated is not Halit Çelenk but İrfan Emin Kösemihaloğlu. Halit Çelenk’s link with Nâzım Hikmet lies on a different historical line. The source recounting Çelenk’s life story states that he and Şekibe Çelenk visited Nâzım in Bursa Prison; but this visit does not make Çelenk Nâzım Hikmet’s attorney in the poem in question or the addressee of the poem. Çelenk’s defining identity as defense counsel in legal history was shaped by the defenses he undertook in political criminal trials, above all the THKO case in which Deniz Gezmiş, Yusuf Aslan and Hüseyin İnan were tried.

To place İrfan Emin Kösemihaloğlu and Halit Çelenk in the same biographical relationship would be historically wrong; but it is possible to read the two portraits on the same ethical line. Kösemihaloğlu represents the personal loyalty that turns into the “human hand” in the poem; Çelenk represents the dignified continuity that carried defense, bearing witness and social memory together over the years. One is the symbol of the friendship that is not forgotten, the other of the defense that does not let forgetting happen.

What Makes Famous Criminal Defense Attorneys Enduring? Character Portraits from Turkish Legal History

Method of Reading the Portraits

In the sections below, no definitive verdict is passed on a person’s entire private life and no clinical personality diagnosis is made. Each portrait is built in four layers: a documented public event, an accessible anecdote, the line of professional character drawn from them, and the shadow risk.

An important part of the portraits of the early Republic rests on the study “Black-Robed Men: Portraits of Attorneys from the Newspapers of the 1930s” (“Kara Cübbeliler: 1930’lu Yılların Gazetelerinden Avukat Portreleri”), which examines Hikmet Feridun Es’s interviews published in the newspaper Akşam in 1935. The study itself notes that these texts are period journalism. Nicknames, physical descriptions and colorful anecdotes therefore show the historical atmosphere; they are not to be regarded as complete biographies or scientific personality studies.

Süreyya Ağaoğlu: Pioneering, Grace and Personal Limits

The history of the Istanbul Bar Association identifies Süreyya Ağaoğlu, who graduated from the Faculty of Law in 1925, as the first woman attorney of the Republican period; the same record states that the first woman attorney to register with the Istanbul Bar Association was Beyhan Nil in 1928 and that Ağaoğlu registered with the Bar in 1936. This nuance places the one-sentence “first” claim of the popular narrative in its correct context.

The 1935 interview relates Ağaoğlu’s neat and careful appearance, her intense working tempo and that she did not prefer divorce cases so as not to be in constant contact with the dark sides of life. Rather than repeating the period’s similes as personality fact by today’s standards, one should look at the pattern of behavior.

The same period portrait also relates that the professional conversations she had with her father, the thinker Ahmet Ağaoğlu, held a special intellectual closeness for her. This detail shows that her passion for work was nourished not only in solitude but also in intergenerational conversation and exchange of ideas.

Line of character: Pioneering and setting limits go side by side. In a period when women’s entry into the field of law was not regarded as ordinary, a determination that forces the door open is combined with a selectiveness that knows one need not take every case.

Shadow risk and lesson: Pioneering can force a person to appear constantly strong. The Ağaoğlu portrait, while showing the social meaning of representation, also reminds that the attorney must look after their own psychological sustainability.

Faruk Erem: Humanist Conscience and Humility in Judging

The TBB record of Faruk Erem, one of the founding presidents of the Union of Turkish Bar Associations, records his human-centered approach to criminal law, identified with the thought “scratch the culprit.” Erem’s counsels on eye contact, not blaming and searching for the human being are also the backbone of this article’s section on cognitive empathy.

His memory of the hand he held growing cold during an execution carries the debate on the death penalty from abstract penal theory to the living body. The saying on rest, since it exists only at the level of secondary relay, has not been used as a definitive quotation.

Line of character: In Erem, compassion, curiosity and epistemic humility come together. He regards not forming easy judgments about a human being not as weakness but as a self-restraint befitting the heavy power of criminal law.

Shadow risk and lesson: While humanizing the perpetrator, a humanist outlook must not push the victim’s pain into the background. Erem’s legacy is not belittling the act, but not erasing human dignity from consideration however grave the act may be.

İrfan Emin Kösemihaloğlu: The Attorney Who Became the “Human Hand” in a Poem

In the section “Nâzım’s ‘Human Hand’” above, the poem’s acrostic, its addressee and the defense-counsel relationship in the 1931 trial have been explained with their sources. Even so, friendship and the capacity of defense counsel at each stage of a case are not the same. The chronology of the 1938 Military Academy trial records that Nâzım Hikmet’s request to be defended by İrfan Emin was not accepted and that Fuat Ömer Keskinoğlu and Saffet Nezihi Bölükbaşı were authorized. This detail does not erase the fact that Kösemihaloğlu was Nâzım’s attorney and friend; it places him in the correct context of time and file.

The period source relates that Kösemihaloğlu saw practicing law as an opportunity to “watch the theater of life from the wings and from within the stage”; and relates his mischievous, cheerful temperament, open to the observation of people.

Line of character: Loyalty, friendship, humor and literary sensibility. In Kösemihaloğlu’s portrait the client is not a file number but a whole human being, with their pain, memory and poetry.

Shadow risk and lesson: Friendship gives no license to bend historical truth. Warm trust and cool-headed verification must be found together in the same character.

Sadi Rıza Dağ: The Rhetoric of Silence

Sadi Rıza Dağ, registered in the Istanbul Bar register under No. 545, is called the “Nightingale of the High Criminal Court” (“Ağır Ceza Bülbülü”) in the period account. His putting on his tortoiseshell-looking glasses at the moment of speaking, his creating silence in the courtroom, the account that in a student’s case he touched the human feeling of a judge who had recently suffered the grief of losing a child, and his being left alone with a hookah afterwards turn the portrait into one of the strong scenes of courthouse folklore. These details rest on the period press; they do not have the certainty of a court record.

Line of character: Dağ’s strength arises not from anger directed outward but from his ability to manage his emotion. He knows how to wait; before speaking he gives the room a rhythm. That he did not turn the struggle at the hearing into a personal feud with a colleague shows that a strong ego need not produce conflict.

Shadow risk and lesson: Emotional contact must not turn into manipulation; there must be no effort to produce a judgment out of a judge’s personal pain. The human bond is part of the defense to the extent that it illuminates the legitimate meaning of the file.

Mustafa Hayri Bey: The Preparation-Minded Mind of the Night Rehearsal

Mustafa Hayri, who is said to have served earlier as a prosecutor and who was called by the nickname “Crazy” (“Deli”) in the period press, is reported to have gotten out of bed at night and rehearsed his defense aloud in the dark beside his bed. His bluntness and his manner of not hiding his thoughts are the source of the nickname in the language of journalism; no psychiatric or clinical conclusion can be drawn from it.

The period account also shows that he tried to explain human behavior through the sense of dignity, sudden anger and the pressure of daily life. This is not a scientific and universal theory of the causes of crime; it is a period observation by an attorney trying to understand the psychological fracture behind the act.

Line of character: A perfectionist, preparation-minded character who lives the hearing in his mind before it begins, constructs the opposing word in advance and reduces uncertainty through repetition.

Shadow risk and lesson: Rehearsal simplifies the main idea and makes anxiety workable. But if the mind can never leave the file, preparation can turn into obsession and passion into burnout. Professional mastery is not putting out the fire but preventing that fire from burning down the house.

Avram Naom: Poetic Conscience and Irreversible Punishment

A period study relates that Avram Naom, registered in the Istanbul Bar register under No. 46, besides practicing law was interested in poetry and publishing, published the journal Mirat with İsak Ferera, and in his article of March 2, 1909 objected to the death penalty by taking Beccaria as his starting point.

Line of character: A curious mind moving among poetry, publishing and criminal law. In him literature is not ornament but a means of grasping the human meaning of irreversible punishment.

Shadow risk and lesson: Poetic sensibility can enrich legal thought; but rhetoric must not come ahead of verified fact. Naom’s enduring lesson is that a sanction that cannot be remedied demands extraordinary humility and care.

Kenan Öner: Self-Respect That Asks for Right, Not Favor

The period portrait of Kenan Öner, registered in the Istanbul Bar register under No. 866, foregrounds plain expression, sincerity and the idea of not expecting favor from the court. The thought attributed to him, “an attorney does not plead, he demands,” is consistent with this portrait; but since the word-for-word source of the long formulation has not been confirmed, it has not been given as a direct quotation.

Line of character: A direct character that does not shrink before authority and preserves professional self-respect.

Shadow risk and lesson: Unbending will, when it remains tied to a right, is a backbone; when it turns into a display of personal superiority, it shuts down communication. A good attorney demands, but carries the demand not with anger but with reasoning.

Cemil Nazif: Preserving One’s Function Under the Sound of Gunfire

The period account relates that Cemil Nazif, known by the nickname “Curly” (“Kıvırcık”), took on the defenses of persons reported to have been ill-treated during the years of occupation, and relates the setting of an armed attack during a trial in Sirkeci. Not all the details have been verified by an independent archival record.

Line of character: Not the absence of fear but preserving the professional function in spite of fear. A stance that has no need to inflate the story to prove its courage.

Shadow risk and lesson: It is dangerous to regard self-sacrifice as the necessary measure of the profession. Courage is not belittling safety measures; it is not abandoning the right while being aware of the risk.

Abdülkadir Ziya Karamürsel: Unpretentious Warmth (kalenderlik), Music and a Conciliatory Temperament

The period portrait of Abdülkadir Ziya Karamürsel, known as “Father” (“Baba”), relates his turning his 138-kilogram bulk into humor, his love of the violin and music, his sweet tongue that reconciled people, and his long line of service as an executive at the Beşiktaş Gymnastics Club. The saying that if everyone exceeded a hundred kilos there would be no war is the humorous expression of the period.

The source study also contains the information that Karamürsel served on the Beşiktaş board between 1928 and 1948 and was president three times. This versatility among sports administration, music and law makes it insufficient to explain his courthouse identity by case types alone.

The important correction is this: In the interview Karamürsel states that he did not like homicide files and worked more with law, commerce and maritime commerce matters. It is therefore not right to reinvent him as a “great criminal defense attorney.” His place in the article is in terms of the courthouse humanity, conciliatory language and unpretentious warmth (kalenderlik) that neighbor the heavy atmosphere of criminal defense.

Line of character: A conciliatory temperament that softens tension with humor, accepts life as it is, and uses music as a means of inner balance.

Shadow risk and lesson: Humor can reduce conflict; but it must not turn into a curtain that makes light of the weight of victimization. Unpretentious warmth is not indifference; it is the lightness of being able to carry weight.

“Kabakulak/Yelken” Sami Bey and Vahid Bey: Two Portraits That Have Been Mixed Up

In popular accounts, “Yelken/Kabakulak” Sami Bey, who was a man of the theater, a Karagöz puppeteer, and was involved in divorce and criminal cases, has also been loaded with the traits of a modest family man who rolls up his trouser legs to cook at home and does not shy from being described as “henpecked.” The period source does not present these two portraits as belonging to the same person.

Yelken Sami is the portrait of a nimble-witted man who had ties to the theater, is associated with the play Bin Dolap, was seen in artists’ legal matters, was known for law and divorce cases, and brought laughter into the courthouse corridors. The quality of “Karagöz puppeteer,” on the other hand, is intertwined in the source with Rami Başaran’s passion for Karagöz; it should not be used as a definitive biographical title.

Vahid Bey, by contrast, is the person who openly describes home life, the table, helping his wife and simple pleasures, and who is not offended by the period’s belittling label “henpecked.” Making this distinction is not removing any anecdote; it is returning two wrongly merged people to their own personalities.

Character lesson: In Yelken Sami, play, humor and social intelligence come to the fore; in Vahid Bey, unpretentious compassion, labor at home and being at peace with oneself. The human side of criminal defense shows not only in hard courage but also in the ability to love life and not be ashamed of serving others.

Rami Başaran: Karagöz, a Cambric Robe and Wise Cheerfulness

The period portrait of Rami Başaran, registered in the Istanbul Bar register under No. 876, describes his passion for Karagöz, his listening to the radio on a balcony overlooking the sea in Bakırköy, and his contentment with his simple life with fifteen cambric robes (patiska entari). Contrary to the “gramophone” detail found in some accounts, the period source consulted gives the device as “radio.”

Line of character: A wise cheerfulness that does not lose life’s small joys while in contact with heavy courthouse stories. His interest in the art of Karagöz feeds imitation, rhythm, understanding the audience and the ability to see human weaknesses through humor.

Shadow risk and lesson: Cheerfulness must not turn into escape. But an attorney who leaves his whole self to the darkness of the case may in time lose the ability to read people as well. The peace on Rami Başaran’s balcony shows that professional resilience can arise from a connection with daily life.

Esad Bey: The Unseen Anxiety of Practicing Law

The portrait of Esad Bey in the 1935 interviews relates that a jurist who had earlier served as a prosecutor found the burden of securing rights more wearing in practicing law, and that after he began the profession his anxiety and smoking increased. This is important not to romanticize an unhealthy habit but to show the psychological burden of practicing law, which differs from sitting in a decision-making seat.

Line of character: An anxious conscience that feels the weight of responsibility in the body and carries within itself the possibility of failing to secure the right.

Shadow risk and lesson: Anxiety can provide attentiveness; but if it turns into constant alarm that harms the body and life, it corrupts professional judgment too. The Esad Bey portrait shows that burnout is not a new concept; it is only a professional reality that was named less in the past.

Refik İnce: The Trust That Repairs Broken Self-Respect (izzetinefs)

In the 1935 text attributed to Refik İnce, the attorney is described as a light for a person in a moment of despair, a remedy for the wounded heart, and a repairer of broken self-respect (izzetinefs). Since the archive copy is not directly accessible, the chain of sources must be stated expressly.

Line of character: A shelter-building character who notices the client’s broken honor, not only the legal break.

Shadow risk and lesson: The attorney’s being a shelter is not assuming the role of savior. Trust is built not with a promise of outcome but with honest explanation, confidentiality, continuity, limits and respect. Repairing self-respect is making the person feel again that they are the subject of their own decisions.

Halit Çelenk: Loyalty, Dignified Accompaniment and Long Memory

Halit Çelenk is among the strong memory figures of legal history through his role as defense counsel in the THKO case in which Deniz Gezmiş, Yusuf Aslan and Hüseyin İnan were tried. The memorial record of the Union of Turkish Bar Associations records his professional legacy centered on democracy, freedom, labor, peace and law. The extent of his historical contact with Nâzım Hikmet and the true addressee of the poem “How Are You?” have been explained, kept distinct from each other, in the section above.

Line of character: Calm, literary and historical memory, human loyalty to the client’s fate, and the patience to keep telling the story after the noise of the great case has passed. Çelenk’s human accompaniment carries the representation relationship to the dimension of friendship and bearing witness.

Shadow risk and lesson: Loyalty must not destroy critical distance. The enduring lesson of the Çelenk portrait is that defense can be not a one-hearing performance but work that carries record, memory and human dignity over the years.

Orhan Apaydın: The Institutional Backbone of Independent Defense

Orhan Apaydın’s place in his bar presidency and in law and human rights work shows that the independence of defense can be protected not only by individual courage but also by institutions.

Line of character: A founding character who sees the importance of the professional organization and of a common culture of defense beyond the individual file.

Shadow risk and lesson: Institutional language can make the person invisible. A good founder, while defending the great principle, does not lose the voice of the concrete client.

Gülçin Çaylıgil: Persistence, Freedom of Expression and Continuity

Gülçin Çaylıgil’s defense of writers, journalists and thinkers over her long professional life shows the importance of continuity in freedom-of-expression files. Public biographical records show that for decades she worked on cases associated with charges of thought crime.

Line of character: Persistent follow-through, memory and a resilience that does not abandon even a low-visibility file.

Shadow risk and lesson: A long struggle can occupy a person’s whole life. The Çaylıgil portrait reminds that for persistence to be effective it must be pursued together with personal resilience and limits.

How Should Professional Style Be Analyzed for Contemporary Jurists?

When doing a “personality analysis” of living persons, the limit is narrower. Unverified conclusions about private life, intent or psychological makeup cannot be drawn. The portraits below are not a ranking of superiority; they explain the patterns of professional style visible from the person’s public education, publications, cases and professional organization work. Because of the risk that the descriptions “famous,” “successful” or “best” produce advertising and subjective evaluation, only verifiable fields of work have been taken as the basis.

Prof. Dr. Erdener Yurtcan: Academic Output Together with Poetic Sensibility

The Istanbul Bar Association’s record “Poems of a Criminal Law Specialist” (“Bir Cezacının Şiirleri”) relates together Erdener Yurtcan’s position as a faculty member in criminal law, his long publishing activity, his practice as an attorney and his poetry work.

Public professional line: Combining intensive academic output with literary sensibility in the same life. This combination is an important example for ensuring that the technical language of criminal law does not detach from human experience.

Lesson: Poetry does not take the place of a rule of law; but it can develop the jurist’s sensitivity to language, rhythm, the human condition and uncertainty.

Prof. Dr. Köksal Bayraktar: Teaching and Human-Centered Criminal Law

The 2024 seminar record of Bilkent University and public professional biographies document Köksal Bayraktar’s long academic and attorney line. In his own professional presentation, the idea comes to the fore that the person being tried is a human being in all respects and that their rights must be protected as broadly as possible.

Public professional line: Teaching, human-centered criminal law and intergenerational transfer of knowledge.

Lesson: The influence of a great criminal law jurist continues not only in the files they win but also in the way of thinking of the students and young colleagues they train.

Prof. Dr. Ersan Şen: High Energy Between Academic Law and Public Debate

The public professional biography records Ersan Şen’s academic titles in criminal law and criminal procedure law, his publishing, and his practice as an attorney registered with the Istanbul Bar Association.

Public professional line: A visible legal practice that combines academic concepts with current legal debate and puts forward its views in an open and high-energy language.

Shadow risk and lesson: Public visibility lets thought reach a wide audience; at the same time it increases the risk of speed, polarization and the person coming ahead of the file. The lesson to be drawn from this portrait is not praise of a personality but that the visible jurist must re-establish, in every sentence, the limits of source, measure and role.

Celal Ülgen: A Long-Haul Practice in Political Cases, and Resilience

Accessible biographical records note Celal Ülgen’s graduation from Istanbul University Faculty of Law, his practice and writing as an attorney, and his work in cases that drew intense public attention, including Ergenekon and Balyoz. Cumhuriyet’s biographical news report is one of the accessible sources for this public line.

Public professional line: Persistence in long-running files of high political tension, building a legal narrative for the public, and professional resilience.

Shadow risk and lesson: Major political cases can turn the attorney, too, into an actor of polarization. Professional resilience requires that the language of public opinion not overshadow the defense of the concrete person. Particular working habits attributed to him, such as a “sealed evidence audit,” could not be verified by a reliable source and have therefore not been written as personal traits.

Fikret İlkiz: Carrying Freedom of Expression Between Law and Public Conscience

Fikret İlkiz’s public résumé records his work in practicing law, press and freedom of expression, professional organization and publishing, and his role in public files such as the Cumhuriyet newspaper case.

Public professional line: A language of defense working among law, media and social memory, which connects an individual journalist’s or publication case with the broader question of freedom of expression.

Shadow risk and lesson: The expression “social conscience” gives the attorney no undisputed moral superiority. While describing a structural problem, one must protect the client’s concrete will, privacy and individual need.

In this section no portrait or self-assessment concerning Attorney Umut Güneş has been included, deliberately. The author’s name is the article’s byline; it is not part of the comparative personality table.

Famous Criminal Defense Attorneys of the World: The Different Spirits, Schools and Character Lessons of Defense

Thomas Erskine: Independence That Keeps the Attorney From Becoming the Judge

Thomas Erskine’s defenses in freedom-of-expression and political cases at the end of the 18th century are the classic source of the idea that an attorney must not prejudge the defendant by their own opinion. Historical collections of speeches on the Thomas Paine defense emphasize that an attorney’s avoiding the duty because of a personal opinion about the accusation or the defense would amount to assuming the role of judge.

Line of character: An independent mind that, while preserving respect for authority, reminds it of its legal limit; an oratory that places intellectual and moral responsibility on the jury.

Shadow risk and lesson: A great speech of principle can overshadow the concrete human being. The lesson to be taken from Erskine is that the attorney must not turn personal liking or hatred into the authority to judge.

Fernand Labori: The Will That Returned After a Gunshot Wound

Fernand Labori, who served in Dreyfus’s retrial in Rennes, was subjected to an armed attack on August 14, 1899. Although popular accounts say he “appeared at the hearing the next day with a bandage,” the reliable chronology shows that he returned to the trial on August 22.

Line of character: Resilience that returns to the professional function after a physical attack, and an indomitable will.

Shadow risk and lesson: Inflating the event adds nothing to Labori’s real courage. Writing the eight-day recovery interval correctly shows that the history of defense, too, must remain faithful to evidence.

Hans Litten: The Moral Price of a Prepared Question

Litten’s examination of Hitler is not a single moment of heroism. It is the long line of a jurist who was interested in art and literature, thought in many directions and preserved his intellectual curiosity even under pressure.

Line of character: Intellectual breadth, evidence-based courage and moral stubbornness.

Shadow risk and lesson: Not desiring to pay a price, but not shrinking from the price when a question needs to be asked. Professional organizations should build institutions that protect the attorney so that individual heroism is not needed.

Samuel Leibowitz: A Methodical Defense Against Prejudice in Scottsboro

The Scottsboro Archive of Cornell Law School opens to access a case collection documenting that Samuel S. Leibowitz represented, at various stages of the proceedings, nine Black youths tried in 1931 in a racist social setting. The PBS American Experience biography relates that, although his political views did not coincide with those of the organization that took up the case, Leibowitz accepted the task in order to defend a person’s fundamental rights and took part in a defense conducted without any fee being offered. The case earned its place in legal history not through oratory alone but through methodical work that made racist jury exclusion and the structural prejudices of the proceedings visible through the records.

Line of character: A professional independence able to draw close to a person outside one’s own circle; a preparation-minded mind that tests entrenched prejudice not with general slogans but with concrete trial records.

Shadow risk and lesson: A strong attorney coming from outside can easily become the case itself. Leibowitz’s making room, in later stages, for local attorneys to assume a more visible role reminds that defense should be built according to the client’s concrete interest rather than a display of ego. The lesson of Scottsboro is not a romantic narrative in which a single hero saved the whole case; it is that prejudice can be exposed through legal method, persistence and institutional oversight.

Clarence Darrow: Compassionate Skepticism

Clarence Darrow’s closing argument in the Leopold–Loeb case was spread over August 22, 23 and 25, 1924. The accessible full text of the speech shows that he built the sentencing debate on the perpetrators’ age, development, environment and the meaning of the death penalty. The popular claim of a “single 12-hour speech” has not been used because it cannot be reliably verified.

The saying “sympathy is the child of imagination” is also attributed to Darrow. This exact sentence does not appear in the accessible text of the speech; on the other hand, Darrow expressly argues that judging a human life cannot be done without imagination, sympathy, kindness and understanding. In this way the essence of the thought has been preserved, and the unverifiable formulation has not been turned into a direct quotation.

Line of character: A radical empathy that, where society wants to see only a “monster,” looks for human development, causation and the intellectual power of compassion; a mind that doubts categorical verdicts.

Shadow risk and lesson: Humanizing the perpetrator is not erasing the victim. Darrow’s method is strong when it ties empathy to the purpose of punishment; it is incomplete when it makes one side of suffering invisible.

Jacques Vergès: Radical Independence and the Shadow of Rupture

Vergès’s approach of rupture, known as the “defense of rupture,” makes the political and historical framework of the court the subject of debate rather than merely answering the accusation. His defenses in the context of the Algerian struggle for independence are the best-known examples of this method.

The account attributed to Vergès, that the client is “a human being with two hands and two eyes” and that the idea of an “absolute monster” should be rejected, also reflects the theme of humanization in his thinking on defense; but since the exact source of the sentence cannot be verified, it has not been used in quotation marks.

Line of character: A provocative and independent mind that does not shy from conflict and questions the court’s assumption before the court.

Shadow risk and lesson: A defense of rupture can enlarge the attorney’s stage and sacrifice the client’s concrete interest to political spectacle. Since reliable full sources for the sayings attributed to Vergès, “I defend not the crime but the culprit,” “there is no absolute evil” and “an attorney is not the accomplice of their client,” cannot be verified individually, they are used in this text not as slogans but as an intellectual theme.

Gisèle Halimi: Fragile Courage That Turns Anger into Method

The record of the French National Archives notes Gisèle Halimi’s line of representing Djamila Boupacha, the young Marie-Claire tried for an abortion in the Bobigny case, and the victims of sexual assault in the Aix-en-Provence case. The commemoration text of the Presidency of the French Republic describes a continuity extending from her childhood resistance to her family for the right to education to her struggles for women’s rights and against the death penalty.

The small anecdote in the commemoration text is important: Halimi used to tell how, while waiting for a verdict, she clung anxiously to the button of her robe. The attorney who shakes the order in the courtroom is a fragile human being waiting in the corridor for the outcome.

Line of character: Rebellion, empathy, public strategy and a courage that does not deny its own fragility. She does not leave her anger as scattered reaction but turns it into legal and social method.

Shadow risk and lesson: A great case can reduce a person to a symbol. Public strategy must not instrumentalize the client’s privacy and concrete need.

Bryan Stevenson: Proximity, Humility and Stubborn Hope

The Equal Justice Initiative biography documents Bryan Stevenson’s long-term work focused on the representation of the poor, of convicted persons and of persons under threat of the death penalty, and on the problems of wrongful conviction and severe sentencing.

Line of character: A field curiosity that, rather than merely summoning the person to the office, draws close to the social environment in which the event arose; a humility that accepts the limits of the attorney’s own knowledge; hope that continues even after the judgment.

Shadow risk and lesson: “Proximity” must not turn into a savior self. The attorney goes to the person’s side; they do not live in the person’s place.

Shirin Ebadi: Building Institutions from Calm Courage

The Nobel biography records Shirin Ebadi’s professional line connected with the rights of women and children, human rights defenders and institutional legal work.

Line of character: A long-term institutional patience that is not confined to a single loud moment under pressure; making the files of vulnerable groups lasting through institutions and international language.

Shadow risk and lesson: The institution must not take the place of the human being. A culture of defense must be able to build structures without reducing singular pain to a footnote of a large report.

Amal Clooney: Controlled Visibility and Thinking Across Multiple Legal Orders

The Columbia Law School record offers a verifiable framework for Amal Clooney’s work in international human rights and international criminal law.

Line of character: Controlled visibility, analytical discipline and mental movement among multiple legal orders in a field where the risk of personal fame overshadowing the file is high.

Shadow risk and lesson: Public recognition is not the same as expertise. The visible jurist must limit the attention economy by the client’s safety and legal aims.

Helena Kennedy: Institutional Imagination Reaching from the Courtroom to Law Reform

The United Kingdom Parliament committee record offers an accessible example of Helena Kennedy’s institutional contributions in the fields of criminal justice, human rights and law reform.

Line of character: An institutional imagination able to see injustice recurring in a single file as a question of the system and to build links among the fields of hearing, research, education and legislation.

Shadow risk and lesson: Talk of the system can drown out the voice of the concrete person. The reformist attorney, while seeing the big picture, must not lose the person in front of them.

F. Lee Bailey, Irving Younger and Leslie Cuthbert: The Character Test of Technical Mastery

These three names are not of the same kind. Younger is remembered for his instructive rules, Cuthbert for his discipline of everyday advocacy, and Bailey for his high-visibility practice of questioning and heavy ethical controversy.

Shared character lesson: A simple question, an aim thought out in advance, listening and timing are the foundation of intelligence in the courtroom.

Diverging ethical lesson: The Bailey example shows that brilliant performance does not make up for a deficiency in trust, accountability and professional ethics. The mental architecture of a great criminal defense attorney is not merely a quick mind but a character able to limit itself.

What Should a Good Criminal Defense Attorney Be Like? A Comprehensive Map of the Architecture of Spirit and Character

The table below is not a ranking of success. Without confining the same person to a single label, it makes visible the dominant line of professional character treated in the article and its shadow risk.

The Anatomy of Defense Personality: There Is No Single “Great Attorney” Temperament

The robe gathers attorneys under the same professional roof; it does not turn them all into the same character. One opens space with silence, another shakes the order with a question. One finds the human being by looking into the client’s eyes, another builds an institution against a historical acceptance. One leaves a mark in a single hearing, another carries the same right for forty years.

No attorney belongs to a single type alone. Halimi is both challenging and founding; Litten both questioning and price-bearing; Erem both humanist and teaching; Çelenk both loyal and institutional; Karamürsel both unpretentious and conciliatory. Professional maturity is not eliminating the dominant quality but recognizing and managing its shadow side.

The Inner World of the Criminal Defense Attorney: Fear, Anger, Doubt, Grief and Hope

Professionalism is not emotionlessness. The attorney bears witness to another’s fear for their freedom, to their family’s anxiety, to the narrative of victimization, to the anger of society and sometimes to the weight of an irreversible punishment. Mastery lies not in denying emotion but in turning it into professional function.

Halimi’s anxiety clinging to the button of her robe, Mustafa Hayri’s building his defense through the night, Darrow’s investigation of human development, Rami Başaran’s plain joy on his balcony overlooking the sea and Sadi Rıza Dağ’s silence tell the same truth in different forms: Emotion is not the enemy of defense; unprocessed emotion is the risk of defense.

The Great Inner Tensions of the Criminal Defense Attorney

The profession is made up not of one-sided virtues but of the strength to carry opposing values at the same time:

• Drawing close enough to empathize, leaving enough distance to assess soundly.
• Remaining loyal to the client, resisting their request that is contrary to the law.
• Preserving respect for the court, not bowing before office.
• Being courageous, not turning courage into aggression.
• Telling the human story, not putting the story in the place of verified fact.
• Taking ownership of the file, not placing one’s ego at the center of the file.
• Committing to work with passion, not mistaking exhaustion for devotion.
• Doubting, not letting doubt poison the relationship.
• Preserving hope, guaranteeing no outcome.

These tensions are not resolved; they are managed. The character of a great criminal defense attorney shows not in eliminating one of the opposites but in being able to carry both at once.

Are a Good Criminal Defense Attorney, a Famous Criminal Defense Attorney and a Criminal Defense Attorney Who Defends Well the Same Thing?

Searches such as “good criminal defense attorney,” “famous criminal defense attorney,” “successful criminal defense attorney” or “criminal defense attorney who defends well” are most often not merely a search for a jurist; they are the search of a frightened person for trust, strength and a reduction of uncertainty. This search intent must be understood; but fame and character must not be confused.

Being famous shows a person’s public visibility. Good defense, independently of visibility, requires the following qualities of character:

• the honesty to say what one does not know;
• the courage to listen to the client without judging, yet to test their account;
• the independence not to change one’s legal opinion according to the direction of popular reaction;
• self-restraint in matters of secrecy and privacy;
• the ability to ask a strong question without humiliating the person across;
• building trust on labor, method and truthfulness rather than on outcome;
• setting psychological limits so as to be able to become a human being again on leaving the case.

For this reason no objective and universal ranking of persons as the “best criminal defense attorney” can be drawn up. Such a ranking is both unmeasurable and may be problematic in terms of the ban on advertising by attorneys. The correct and ethical approach in terms of SEO is to address these search phrases not as claims of superiority but within the question “How does a good attorney think, how do they communicate and how do they monitor their character?”

How to Choose a Good Criminal Defense Attorney? Qualities to Look for Before Fame

Choosing a criminal defense attorney is not a choice of a name or of visibility; it is a heavy decision about whose judgment, honesty and work discipline can be trusted under uncertainty. The aim of the first meeting is not for the attorney to figure out the whole file in a few minutes or to know the outcome in advance. The real measure is whether they ask the right questions, state plainly the point they do not know, and can build trust with a frightened person without giving unrealistic assurance.

The qualities of a good criminal defense attorney in the first meeting often show in the following behaviors:

• They listen without interrupting the account; but when they see a contradiction they do not shrink from asking about it.
• They explain not only the favorable possibility but also the facts and uncertainties that may be against the client.
• Instead of promising a “definite outcome,” they explain which information is missing and what method of assessment they will follow.
• They do not belittle the client’s fear; but they do not turn fear into a means of pressure on decision-making and the fee relationship.
• They provide clarity on privacy, the order of communication, the scope of the engagement, financial terms and professional limits.
• They try not to make the client dependent on themselves but to make the client a subject who can understand the process and make informed decisions.

The Difference Between a Good Criminal Defense Attorney and One Who Merely Looks Impressive

Why Is Choosing a Famous Criminal Defense Attorney Not a Sound Criterion by Itself?

Fame is an indicator of public visibility; it is not direct proof of preparation, privacy, accessibility, ethical distance or the mental labor that will be devoted to the file. Conversely, a less visible attorney cannot be considered qualified merely because they are not visible. A sound choice requires assessing the attorney’s concrete working method and professional character, rather than automatically linking fame with competence.

Questions That Can Be Asked of a Good Criminal Defense Attorney in the First Meeting

• What documents and information do you need in order to assess the file soundly?
• What are the basic uncertainties and risks you see at this stage?
• Apart from my account, what possibilities need to be investigated?
• How will communication, information and decision-making work?
• How will the scope of the engagement, fees, expenses and possible additional work be determined?
• Without promising an outcome, by which working standards do you safeguard the quality of the defense?

The aim of these questions is not to put the attorney to an examination; it is to see whether the trust relationship to be built rests on knowledge, openness and mutual responsibility.

How Is Professional Psychological Armor Maintained?

For a criminal defense attorney, self-care is not an escape from work or a demand for comfort. It is the protection of attention, judgment and human relationship. The risk of secondary trauma and burnout is not a personal weakness but the professional consequence of being exposed repeatedly to traumatic narratives.

A healthy culture of defense:

• makes room for mental decompression and conversation with colleagues after a difficult file;
• does not count the attorney’s being reachable at every moment as a measure of loyalty;
• does not cover excessive workload with individual heroism;
• regards sleep, rest and physical health as part of professional competence;
• does not stigmatize seeking psychological support if necessary;
• protects areas of life outside the law such as humor, art, family, friendship and silence.

Rami Başaran’s radio, Karamürsel’s violin, Yurtcan’s poetry and Sadi Rıza Dağ’s solitude after the hearing express the same need in different languages: In order to enter other people’s lives, the attorney must keep open a door through which they can return to their own inner world.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Success in Criminal Defense Only Acquittal?

No. Acquittal is undoubtedly an important outcome; but the quality of a defense cannot be measured by the result of the judgment alone. Ensuring that the evidence is fully discussed, opposing unlawful interference, contributing to the correct characterization of the accusation, preventing a disproportionate protective measure or sanction, and protecting the client’s will and human dignity are also successes of defense. An attorney cannot guarantee a particular outcome; but they are responsible for the standard of preparation, honesty, independence, openness, confidentiality and professional care. This distinction between outcome and professional success protects defense from the advertising promise and the attorney from the fallacy of taking the place of the deciding authority.

Does a Criminal Defense Attorney’s Empathy Mean Believing the Client?

No. Empathy is grasping the meaning the account holds for the person; it is not accepting everything told as verified. A mature attorney both listens and asks, both draws close and keeps distance.

Does a Criminal Defense Attorney Approve of the Act of the Person They Defend?

No. Defense is not identifying with the act; it is ensuring that the person remains a subject of the law and faces a fair assessment rather than prejudgment. That an attorney is not to be identified with their client is also expressly protected in international professional principles.

Must a Criminal Defense Attorney Who Defends Well Be Harsh and Loud?

No. Sadi Rıza Dağ’s silence, Erskine’s language of principle and Younger’s discipline of the short question show a different truth: Effect arises not from volume but from the right timing, preparation and credibility.

Is Discernment of People Detecting Lies from Body Language?

No. Bodily behaviors are not indicators of lying independently of context. Discernment of people is not drawing a definitive judgment from a single behavior; it is carefully investigating the different explanations the behavior may have.

Are Great Criminal Defense Attorneys Not Afraid?

They are afraid. Halimi’s anxiety clinging to her robe and Labori’s return after the attack show that courage is not fearlessness. Courage is refusing fear’s absolute power over behavior.

Does Passion for Work Mean Working Day and Night?

No. The Mustafa Hayri anecdote is a historical symbol of intensive preparation; but modern professional psychology does not count sleeplessness and burnout as superiority. Passion gains value through sustainable discipline.

Does a Famous Criminal Defense Attorney Defend Better?

Recognition is not a criterion by itself. The Bailey example shows that technical brilliance does not guarantee ethical character; and in history many less popular names left a deep mark through loyalty, humility and continuity.

Is an Attorney’s Loyalty to the Client Unlimited?

No. Loyalty is protecting the client’s legitimate interest within independence and ethics. Complying with a client’s instruction contrary to the law is not loyalty but a loss of professional independence.

Does an Attorney’s Respect Toward Judges and Prosecutors Require Limiting Their Objections?

Mutual respect does not mean giving up a legally necessary objection. While preserving the independent function of defense, the attorney may discuss the reasoning of a decision and the lawfulness of an act. The basis, purpose and professional tone of the objection are assessed together.

Is Courage in Defense Needed Only Against State Power?

No. One must be able to remain independent also against the client’s request that is contrary to the law, the pressure of public opinion, the expectations of the political circle and the attorney’s own first opinion. Professional courage is being able to keep the same legal and moral measure under each of these pressures.

Complementary Reading on Criminal Law and the Art of Defense

To consider the professional character of criminal defense together with the duties in criminal proceedings:

• Criminal Law and Criminal Proceedings
• The Role and Importance of the Attorney in Criminal Cases

The historical dimension of professional memory is addressed, through all fifty counsels and their relation to today’s law, in the article The 1928 Istanbul Bar Association Diary: Attorney Professional Ethics and 50 Counsels, prepared together with this study.

Conclusion: The Real Case of a Great Criminal Defense Attorney Is Their Own Character

The deepest case of criminal defense is most often seen within the attorney themselves before it appears in the court file. Will they turn their anger into speech or into attack? Will they lose their own self while drawing close to the client’s pain? Will they be able to stand alone when the public hates? While showing respect for the judge’s office, will they be able to object to what they see as contrary to right? When fame turns toward them, will they make the file visible, or themselves? When they are tired, will they admit it, or will they mistake exhaustion for heroism?

Faruk Erem’s human-seeking gaze, Nâzım’s “human hand” reaching toward İrfan Emin Kösemihaloğlu, Halit Çelenk’s long memory, Sadi Rıza Dağ’s silence, Mustafa Hayri’s night rehearsal, Kenan Öner’s self-respect that asks for right instead of favor, Cemil Nazif’s stance under risk, the unpretentious (kalender) cheerfulness of Karamürsel and Rami Başaran, and Refik İnce’s repair of honor are different spirits of the same profession.

Erskine and John Adams teach that defending a person who is not liked does not make the attorney a judge; Labori and Litten, that defense does not come without cost; Darrow, to investigate human development behind the label “monster”; Vergès, to question the court’s framework; Halimi, to turn anger into method; Stevenson, to draw close to people; Ebadi and Kennedy, to build institutions; Cuthbert and Younger, that the great word is often short and prepared; and Bailey, that technical mastery remains incomplete without an ethical backbone.

But the whole picture of criminal defense is not made up of the defense counsel’s courage alone. The victim’s and intervening party’s counsel converting trauma into a demand for justice without reproducing it; the attorney carrying another’s secret without making it their own story; protecting the factual limits of the file while the digital public forms its verdict; and being able to test their own cognitive blind spots even in the moment they are passionately attached to their own thesis are parts of the same architecture of character. Measure in the night statement, clarity in the questioning, the prepared question at the hearing and controlled silence before social media are the forms philosophy takes in professional practice.

The basic thought of this study of character is this:

A good criminal defense attorney is not merely a person who makes a defense; it is a person who, while looking into the darkness of the human being, does not lose their own conscience, reason and independence.

The nobility of defense lies not in the attorney never being afraid, but in saying what is right in spite of fear, in understanding the human being without losing oneself, and in not abandoning human dignity before judgment even under the gravest accusation.

---

Law cannot be practiced with fear. Courage in defense is being able to say, even before powerful offices, the word that law and human dignity require; professional ethics is grounding that word in correct knowledge, careful work and an independent conscience.

Method of Using and Verifying Sources

In this article, definitive quotations, historical facts and interpretations of character have not been used at the same level. Sayings for which a primary text or reliable institutional record was reached are given in quotation marks; for anecdotes traceable only through secondary sources, the limit of the source has been explained; aphorisms that could not be verified word for word are conveyed through their intellectual content without being directly quoted. In the portraits, what has been assessed is not a clinical personality diagnosis but professional style and lines of character that can be drawn from documented public conduct.

The hierarchy of sources has been applied as follows:

• First level: The person’s work, hearing text, court record, official institution, bar association or university record.
• Second level: Peer-reviewed/academic work, reliable biography and archival research.
• Third level: Period journalism, commemorative writing and professional anecdotes relayed later. The colorful details in these sources have not been presented as definite biographical fact.

The principal verifications made in line with this method are as follows:

• A word-for-word counterpart in the 1804 text of the saying “arrogant chatterers/hypertrophy of pedantry” attributed to Feuerbach could not be verified; the thought was conveyed without being directly quoted.
• Socrates was not an attorney but a philosopher conducting his own defense; Plato’s Apologia is not a modern court record.
• The ethos–logos–pathos triad rests on Aristotle; Cicero was not credited with inventing it. “Cui bono?” was likewise not presented as Cicero’s personal invention.
• All the popular sayings attributed to Erskine and Vergès could not be confirmed directly and from a primary source; the verifiable professional thought was paraphrased.
• It was stated that the acrostic in Nâzım Hikmet’s poem “How Are You?” is “İRFAN EMİN” and that the addressee of the poem is İrfan Emin Kösemihaloğlu; Halit Çelenk’s historical contact with Nâzım Hikmet was separated from this relationship.
• It was explained that the anecdotes of Sadi Rıza Dağ, Mustafa Hayri, Cemil Nazif, Karamürsel, Yelken Sami, Vahid Bey, Rami Başaran and Esad Bey rest on period journalism.
• The portrait of cooking at home and being “henpecked” loaded onto “Yelken Sami” was separated from the account of Vahid Bey in the source; both facts were preserved.
• The device in the Rami Başaran account was written as “radio,” as it appears in the period source consulted; the “gramophone” expression in some secondary accounts was not used.
• It was stated that Karamürsel worked more in the fields of law, commerce and maritime commerce and did not like homicide files; he was not reconstructed as a criminal defense attorney.
• Faruk Erem’s memory of holding a hand at an execution was relayed with accessible sources; the saying on rest was given with the limitation of a secondary source.
• Clarence Darrow’s speech was not written as a “single 12-hour speech”; the verifiable dates of August 22, 23 and 25, 1924 were used.
• It was corrected that Fernand Labori returned to the trial not the day after the attack but eight days later.
• F. Lee Bailey was not idealized by his skill at questioning alone; his professional disciplinary history and ethical paradox were noted.
• No special personality claim or ranking of superiority was made about Ersan Şen, Celal Ülgen and Fikret İlkiz; only public work patterns were used.
• Since the direct archive copy of Refik İnce’s saying could not be reached, the secondary-source route was explained.
• The section on representing victims and intervening parties was grounded in UN and Council of Europe texts on the victim’s dignity, access to justice and prevention of secondary victimization; these documents were not put in the place of the procedural designations in Turkish criminal procedure.
• In the section on keeping secrets, Article 36 of the Attorneyship Law, Article 37 of the TBB Rules of Professional Conduct and the decision of the TBB Disciplinary Board dated February 20, 2018, File No. 2017/721 E. and Decision No. 2018/36 K., were used; confidentiality was not presented merely as a literary principle of loyalty.
• The cognitive blind spots were treated not as a clinical diagnosis or an accusation against a particular jurist but as general decision-making risks that can also affect legal professionals.
• It was explained that the concept of “cross-examination” is not identical to the order of putting direct questions in Turkish criminal procedure; the short practice scenes were not turned into a procedural guide.
• It was expressly stated that the Constitutional Court decisions used in the digital public opinion section were not issued directly about social media lynching; a limited intellectual connection was drawn from the decisions’ reasoning on the presumption of innocence and public statements.
• No portrait, comparison row or subjective claim of success concerning Attorney Umut Güneş was added.

Selected Sources

Professional Philosophy, Psychology and Rhetoric

• Legal-history study on the 1928 Istanbul Bar Association Diary
• Bibliographic record of Feuerbach’s 1804 work
• Plato, Apologia
• UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers
• UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power
• Council of Europe CM/Rec(2023)2 – rights, services and support of victims of crime
• Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271 – current official text
• Attorneyship Law No. 1136 – Union of Turkish Bar Associations
• Rules of Professional Conduct of the Union of Turkish Bar Associations
• TBB Disciplinary Board, February 20, 2018, 2017/721 E., 2018/36 K. – duty to keep secrets
• Constitutional Court (AYM), Halk Radyo ve Televizyon Yayıncılık A.Ş., Application No. 2014/19270
• Constitutional Court (AYM), Application No. 2017/34336 – public statements and the presumption of innocence
• Scientific review of nonverbal behavior and lie detection
• Systematic review of secondary trauma in legal professionals
• Experimental study on decision order and assessment bias in legal professionals
• Scientific review of cognitive biases in professional decision-making
• Leslie Cuthbert, 365 Daily Advocacy Tips
• Current professional record on Irving Younger’s principles of cross-examination

Portraits from Türkiye

• Black-Robed Men: Portraits of Attorneys from the Newspapers of the 1930s (Kara Cübbeliler: 1930’lu Yılların Gazetelerinden Avukat Portreleri)
• History of the Istanbul Bar Association
• TBB record on Faruk Erem’s intellectual legacy
• Faruk Erem Foundation – memory of the death penalty
• Faruk Erem, Bir Ceza Avukatının Anıları (“Memoirs of a Criminal Defense Attorney”) – work and edition information
• Nâzım Hikmet’s 1931 trial, İrfan Emin Kösemihaloğlu’s role as defense counsel and the poem “How Are You?”
• Chronology of Nâzım Hikmet’s 1938 trial
• TBB memorial record on Halit Çelenk
• Halit Çelenk’s life story and visit to Bursa Prison
• Source route of the 1935 text attributed to Refik İnce
• Erdener Yurtcan – Istanbul Bar Association record
• Köksal Bayraktar – Bilkent University seminar record
• Ersan Şen – public professional biography
• Celal Ülgen – accessible biographical record
• Fikret İlkiz – public résumé

Portraits from the World

• 1792 text of Thomas Erskine’s defense of Thomas Paine – University of Michigan
• John Adams and the Boston Massacre trial – United States National Park Service
• Fernand Labori and the chronology of the Dreyfus trial – Georgetown University
• Hans Litten – German Resistance Memorial Center
• Cornell Law School – Scottsboro Trials Collection
• PBS American Experience – Samuel Leibowitz and the Scottsboro defense
• Charter of the International Military Tribunal – Article 16 on fair trial and the assistance of defense counsel
• Record of the Nuremberg Tribunal’s preliminary session of November 15, 1945
• Text of Clarence Darrow’s Leopold–Loeb plea
• Jacques Vergès and the defense of rupture
• Gisèle Halimi – French National Archives
• Bryan Stevenson – Equal Justice Initiative
• Shirin Ebadi – Nobel biography
• Amal Clooney – Columbia Law School
• Helena Kennedy – United Kingdom Parliament
• F. Lee Bailey – O.J. Simpson hearing transcript
• F. Lee Bailey – Maine Supreme Court decision

---

Additional Bases Used in This Revision

• Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye — Constitutional Court, Arts. 2, 13, 36.
• TBB Rules of Professional Conduct — bar association publication with amendment notes, Arts. 2, 17, 22, 24, 33/A, 34, 36, 37.
• Attorneyship Law — bar association publication, Arts. 1, 34 and 36.
• UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers — text of the document, Principles 16–18.
• Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer — institutional explanation.
• Erdener Yurtcan’s emphasis on examining the file — Istanbul Bar Association meeting record.
• CMK — text of the law at the Ministry of Justice, Arts. 67/6, 201, 206, 217, 223.