Frank Talks with Young Attorneys

Being a good attorney, a good jurist and a good person are responsibilities that nourish one another. You must know the law, develop that knowledge through work, and apply it to people’s lives with care. You must listen to your client, get back to your client, be able to account for the work you have done, and, when necessary, not hold back your voice before authority. Professional success rests on a solid foundation when these responsibilities turn into daily working habits.

My young colleagues,

When a person comes to you, they do not place only a file in front of you. Sometimes they place the relationship they will build with their child, sometimes the earnings they saved over years of work, sometimes their freedom, and sometimes a shame and a fear they have been unable to tell anyone. A dispute that you have seen the like of many times may be the first great shock in that person’s life. The day you forget this difference, you begin to overlook the person even if you carry out the legal formalities.

What matters for an attorney who has just entered the profession is not only what to know but also what kind of person to be while working. How will they test their knowledge, how will they admit their mistakes, how will they earn their living, how will they treat the person who trusts them? Will they be able to say no to an unjust request? Will they be able to hold on to a justified objection before a powerful authority? Will they be patient with the question of the trainee beside them? The profession is shaped by the daily answers given to these questions.

What I have cared about conveying while working with young colleagues and trainees over the years is, before ready-made answers, an ethic of work. It is impossible to teach in advance the solution to every file. It is possible, however, to teach how to approach a matter, how to research what is not known, how to build an honest relationship with the client, and how to carry responsibility. The most meaningful return for the effort given is that the young people we work with gradually build their own judgment.

Ali Haydar Özkent’s text titled “Confidential Conversations with Young Attorneys” (“Genç Avukatlarla Gizli Konuşmalar”) is one of the important examples of this professional transmission. The section republished in issue 2011/3 of the Ankara Bar Association Journal (Ankara Barosu Dergisi) ranges from professional distance to fees, from regular work to reading, from writing to love of the profession. In carrying Özkent’s advice to today, the provisions of that period should be assessed against the law in force, and the conception of the human being of that period against the understanding of human dignity and equality. [K1]

The writings brought together under Tarkan Karabel’s book You Too Can Be a Successful Attorney (Siz de Başarılı Bir Avukat Olabilirsiniz) and the title “What Do Clients Want?” (“Müvekkiller ne ister?”) also broaden this discussion on communication, work organization, joint practice and training people. The advice in these sources has been re-evaluated on the basis of the independence of the profession and human dignity. Tactics for winning work, unverified formulas for success and provisions tied to their period are not recommended as they stand for professional training; they are addressed with reasons in the relevant sections. [K9; K10]

Unless the source is stated separately, the short pieces of advice in this article are expressions of the professional approach described here. They are not quotations attributed to historical figures. For words taken from Özkent, the section and page are indicated.

The practice of law is a profession of passion

The practice of law is a profession of passion. If you enter this profession only for the title, for the reputation it appears to bring from the outside, or for the money you expect to earn, the daily responsibilities can turn into a heavy burden in a short time. You must have within you a desire to listen to people’s problems, to read, to research, to write, and to walk patiently in pursuit of a right.

Passion is not understood as loving only the exciting moments of the profession. You will love examining the documents behind the words as much as you love taking the floor at a hearing. The interest you feel when taking on a new matter will show in your work when the file drags on for months. Making the phone call the client is waiting for, changing your first thought when it turns out to be wrong, and re-auditing a calculation that looks tedious are also part of this commitment.

Özkent’s last piece of advice bears the title “Love your profession”. The aspect of this call that must be protected today is the meaning of the profession that touches people. Love of the profession reminds you why you work on hard days. Yet love does not legitimize unjust working conditions, unpaid labor, humiliation, or the constant neglect of one’s health. [K1, §911, p. 309–312]

Ask yourself honestly: Do I enjoy making an effort to understand a legal problem? Do I have the patience to listen to people? Am I willing to follow up on the results of the work I do? Can I admit what I do not know and learn it? If you remain constantly distant from all of these questions, do not condemn yourself to practicing law merely because you graduated from law school. You may find a more meaningful path in other areas of law and working life.

Carrying, out of habit, files that concern other people’s lives, without any interest in or sense of responsibility toward this profession, harms both you and your client. In such a case, changing direction is an honest choice. Temporary fatigue, economic strain, or the reluctance created by a heavy period is a different matter; do not label these as the absence of love for the profession.

Your passion shows in the effort you devote to the file and the care you show to the person.

First build your character and your professional standards

In the practice of law, the limits a person sets for themselves must operate before any oversight from outside. Do you complete a deficiency no one will notice? Are you ready to correct a piece of false information that would benefit you? Do you leave an expense vague because you think the client will not understand it? Professional character often emerges in these silent choices.

Describing the basic supports of the attorney, Özkent says: “An attorney’s capital is, first, honesty and integrity, and then knowledge.” This sentence, which asks that knowledge and ethics be considered together, deserves to lie on a young colleague’s desk. Honesty prevents knowledge from being misused to another’s detriment; knowledge, in turn, ensures that good faith is turned into effective legal assistance. [K1, §910, p. 308]

Have professional standards of your own. Think in advance about which work you cannot take on, which conduct you will not accept, and which information you will not use without verifying it. If you reopen these limits for negotiation in every file, after a while your needs and the expectations of those around you begin to govern your decisions.

Article 1 of the Attorneyship Law (Avukatlık Kanunu) regulates together the profession’s character as a public service and a liberal profession, and the duty of representing independent defense. This position carries a public responsibility in addition to professional freedom. Legal assistance gains value through how a person uses the authority entrusted to them. [K2, Art. 1]

Trust your work, not your intelligence and knowledge

Do not believe in and trust your intelligence and knowledge, but your work. This is one of the most important pieces of advice I can give a young colleague. I am not belittling intelligence or knowledge here. I am describing the danger of building one’s self-confidence on a sense of ability that has not been tested.

A mind that grasps quickly can easily draw a conclusion from the first similarity it sees. An attorney who remembers a provision read earlier may overlook that the provision may have changed. A strong memory can give a mistakenly remembered date the feeling of being correct. Fluent speech, meanwhile, can cover a gap in preparation for a while. For this reason you must subject your abilities to constant checking.

Let your self-confidence have concrete grounds: Did you actually read the file? Did you check the status in force of the relevant provision? Did you see the full text of the decision? Can you explain which fact and which evidence your request rests on? Did you think about the strongest objection of the other side? Let the answers you can give to these questions feed your professional self-confidence.

Work is not merely the sum of the hours spent at a desk. You must know what you did to solve which problem. There is a difference between looking at the same file all day and identifying the decisive contradiction in that file. If, at the end of research, you can write down the conclusion you reached, the point that remains uncertain and the action to be taken, your effort has begun to turn into a legal product.

Do not count your busyness as success by itself either. Keeping up with phone calls all day and postponing substantive research may leave the necessary part of the work incomplete. Have protected periods in your calendar set aside for thinking, reading and writing. Do not let other people’s urgency determine all your priorities by itself.

Working does not make every case end in your favor. There are facts, evidence, the law and judicial assessments that affect the outcome. But regular effort reduces avoidable mistakes; it strengthens the possibility of making sound assessments and defending rights effectively. Place professional confidence on this real foundation.

Do not try to make up with the loudness of your voice for the confidence your preparation cannot show.

Learn as if you knew nothing, and test again what you know

Be hungry for knowledge. Having learned a subject years ago does not mean you can apply it today without research. In every new file, be willing to see once more the basis of what you think you know. Seniority is not a privilege that reduces the need to learn; it should help you notice sooner what you do not yet know.

In Plato’s Apology of Socrates (Sokrates’in Savunması), the discussion around 21d in particular shows the importance of not supposing that you know what you do not know. The lesson that can be drawn from it for the profession is to keep thought open to questioning. This is a professional interpretation made starting from a philosophical text; it is not a historical piece of advice that Socrates gave to attorneys. [K7]

Turn Socratic learning into a working habit. When you reach a conclusion, ask yourself these questions:

• What exactly am I asserting, and what does the concept I am using mean?
• On which fact, document or rule of law am I basing this?
• Have I seen the source, or am I relying on someone else’s account of it?
• What is the strongest reasoning against this thought?
• What new information would require me to change my view?
• What are the limit and the exception of the conclusion I have reached?

These questions should not be directed only at the other side’s claim. Test your own thinking first. Feeling close to your client does not require you to adopt everything you are told without investigating it. Respecting the opinion of a senior colleague should not lead you to give up asking for the basis of that opinion.

Skepticism does not mean regarding everyone as a liar or being unable to decide on anything. Set the depth of your examination according to the importance of the matter; after sufficient research, form a reasoned opinion. Be able to change that opinion when new information arrives. Do not call indecision intellectual refinement, or stubbornness consistency.

Özkent’s advice “Consult the book” (“Kitaba bakınız”) is valid in the digital age as well. Today this call also covers opening the correct version of the statute, reading the full text of the decision, seeing the context of a quotation, and verifying that the source really exists. [K1, §909, p. 307–308]

Being able to say that you do not know is the beginning of learning and of being trustworthy.

Set your professional direction and choose the field you will deepen by working

Trying to keep up with every kind of work is not the same as being able to connect different fields of law. It is valuable to acquire a broad foundation at the beginning of the profession. On top of it, build depth in the fields your interest and working circumstances allow. Do not tie your choice only to a type of dispute that is much talked about today or to stories of high earnings. Consider whether you really want to do the day-to-day work of that field.

Deepening in a field means learning together the relevant legislation, the procedure, the case-law debates and how those relationships are formed in real life. If you work on labor law, make an effort to understand the working order of the workplace; if you are interested in information technology, how the technology works; if you handle health law, the organization of medical services. Learning the technical subject does not mean taking the place of the relevant expertise. It lets you better determine with which question to approach an expert’s opinion.

Draw up your own map of competence. Which work can you carry out independently, in which do you need supervision, which should you not yet take on? A seminar certificate does not show that you can solve every concrete problem. Do not assume either that everyone becomes an expert automatically at the end of a certain year. The value of experience is formed by the variety of the work done, feedback, research and judgment.

When choosing your area of interest, see the real legal needs around you. Do not turn this into a calculation of drumming up business out of people’s fears. Understanding the problem a community experiences is meant for offering it more suitable and accessible legal assistance. When describing your professional activities, also do not resort to titles that the legislation does not permit or to claims of expertise that cannot be verified.

Working in a small office does not mean that you are a lesser attorney from the start. The possibilities of a large structure and the possibilities of one-person practice are different. Determine honestly the scope of the work you can do; when necessary, establish suitable collegial support. Instead of apologizing for your scale, build an arrangement in which you can fulfill the responsibility you undertake.

Be patient in the field you have chosen; but do not think that reassessing your direction is always indecision. New information, changed circumstances or the development of your professional interest can justify a change of direction. Make your decision not at a random moment of distress but on the basis of the experience you have accumulated. Determination is not an obligation to stay tied for life to a wrong choice.

Depth does not begin by writing the name of a field on your card; it is formed by the effort you devote to the hard questions of that field.

Read the file with your own eyes and find the real problem

The client’s account is the entrance to the file. Listen to that account carefully; then establish the dates of events, the documents, the positions of the parties and the legal claims through your own examination. The legal characterization the client uses does not bind you. A person saying they were defrauded does not mean the dispute has been examined in all its aspects; sometimes contract law, sometimes criminal law, sometimes several fields of law must be assessed together.

In the first review, work out the sequence of events. Who did what, and when? Which point is accepted and which is disputed? Where is the document for the alleged event? Do the dates fit one another? Do the result the client desires and the result that can legally be claimed coincide? A long petition written before these questions are clarified can only multiply the uncertainty.

In every file, examine matters such as subject-matter jurisdiction, territorial jurisdiction, standing to be a party, representation, time limits and, where applicable, mandatory preliminary applications, according to the type of case. Do not assume that these areas are governed by the same rules. In particular, do not calculate time limits on the basis of an old example in a source or a habit from another type of case. Determine the triggering event and the regulation to be applied in the specific file.

Work on the documents against you as much as those in your favor. Ignoring an adverse document does not protect the client. Assess the authenticity, scope and legal effect of the document; explain what can be explained, and inform your client of the risk it creates. Producing unlawful evidence, coaching a witness or constructing a narrative contrary to the truth can never be the subject of any professional skill.

Record the court, date, number and relevant reasoning of the case law you will use. A title of a decision or a few sentences in its summary may not suffice to show its fit with your file. A difference in the facts, a provision changed later, or a decision pointing the other way can change the value of a citation that looks strong at first glance.

A claim built without knowing the file is an unnecessary risk taken on someone else’s life.

Manage the first meeting as the beginning of a responsibility

Do not enter the first meeting thinking only about whether you can get the work. Try to understand what the person in front of you has been through, what they want and what legal assistance they need. It is not a success if, at the end of the meeting, they are more frightened and more dependent on you. What is valuable is that they see the matter and their options more clearly.

Before the meeting, prepare the setting and your professional eligibility

Explain in advance the duration and format of the meeting and, if there is one, its fee. Find out who will attend. Assess the possibility of a conflict of interest on the basis of basic information about the parties; avoid needlessly collecting detailed secrets about a matter you could not take on from the start. Also take seriously the confidentiality responsibility that arises while the work has not yet been accepted.

Prepare a setting where private conversation cannot be overheard and documents do not lie open before other people. In an online meeting too, check who is present and whether the connection is suitable. Come to the appointment prepared; do not try to give the impression that you are giving the person your full attention while answering phone calls about another file at the same time.

Welcome and hospitality are small but meaningful parts of the care shown to a person. A clean glass, a suitable place to sit, and an explanation if the wait has been long are important. Do not vary their quality according to the person’s wealth or the work they may bring you. Do not create different classes of respect based on the material value of whoever walks through the door. Think about physical access and communication needs before expensive decoration.

Listen to the account, then separate the fact from the expectation

First give the person the space in which they can build their own account. Then fill in the gaps with the questions of what, when, where, by whom and how. Separate the interpretation about the cause of an event from the event observed directly. Ask questions about dates and consistency not to corner the person but to strengthen the legal assessment.

Do not ask only “What do you want?” The questions “What is the most important matter for you?”, “Which possibility worries you most?” and “What do you expect to change in your life at the end of this process?” can make it easier for you to understand the need behind the request. A person may, alongside seeking compensation, want their reputation restored or want the same event not to happen again. Explain that not every wish can be met through the same legal route.

Ask about private life only to the extent the file requires. Do not intrude into family relations, income details or personal habits merely to build closeness. If a question is necessary but sensitive, explain why you are asking. Do not use the client’s silence, eye contact or body movement alone as a test of whether they are telling the truth.

After listening to the account, summarize it in your own words. You should be able to say, “I understand that this event happened on this date, that you have these documents in hand, and that you want above all for this right to be protected.” If you have misunderstood, it is far more valuable to have it corrected at that moment than to build a file on a wrong assumption.

Explain the options, the uncertainties and the next step

In the meeting, first determine the possibility of an urgent loss of rights. Explain the legal basis of the urgency. Do not get a decision made by producing a deadline or a danger that does not in fact exist. If you need to examine the file, say so; state what you will research and when you can respond.

Compare the routes that can be applied. If there is the option of a lawsuit, a negotiation, a settlement or another application, explain their conditions, costs and limitations. Presenting two options should not turn into a sales technique that prevents the person from seeing a third possibility or the choice of taking no action. Share your professional opinion with its reasons; do not squeeze the client’s decision toward the direction you want.

Tell the truth about your past experience. Do not turn someone else’s file, name or thanks into a means of persuasion. Having worked on a similar subject does not mean that the present matter will end with the same result. If your experience is limited, instead of hiding it, be open about your method of review and, where necessary, of obtaining support.

At the end of the meeting, these five matters should not remain unanswered: What is the scope of the work, who will follow it, what risks are known, how will you communicate, and how will the fee and expenses be managed? These questions, which stand out in Tarkan Karabel’s book and in the text “What Do Clients Want?” (“Müvekkiller ne ister?”), are taken up here not as a persuasion technique but for the relationship to gain clarity. [K9, p. 68–73; K10, p. 1–2]

A person’s not giving you the work is not an insult directed at you. Do not belittle their choice; do not disparage another colleague. If they wish to give feedback, listen; if they do not, let it go. Keep clear whether the work has been accepted and what responsibility has arisen. Let it not be assumed that you are tracking all the time limits because you held a meeting; also separately observe the professional obligations that apply in work that is declined.

The value of the first meeting is measured by the clarity established before the file is taken.

If you lose empathy, you diminish as a human being too

When you lose empathy, you diminish not only as an attorney but as a human being. Listening to people’s pain every day carries the danger of becoming accustomed to that pain over time. Divorce, dismissal from work, pretrial detention or pressure of debt can turn into ordinary concepts in your professional language. For your client the same words may mean sleeplessness, fear, anxiety about making a living and not knowing how their life will go on.

Empathy is trying to understand what the other person is going through within their circumstances. It is not accepting all their assessments as correct. You can both take seriously the fear they feel and correct their legally mistaken expectation. Human closeness and professional judgment can go together.

While listening, do not be busy preparing your answer. Do not check your phone at an important point of the account. Do not meet with immediate impatience a person who keeps returning to the same point; that repetition may show something they have not understood or a fear they have not yet been able to tell. Instead of forming a judgment by assuming, try to understand with calm and clear questions.

Not everyone can tell their trouble in an orderly chronology. They may not know legal terms, may name a document wrongly, may not remember an important date. Your task is not to derive a feeling of superiority from these shortcomings. Structure the meeting with understandable questions. Summarize what you have heard in your own sentences and confirm whether you have understood correctly.

Poverty, level of education, age, disability, language difference or mental strain can never be a reason for anyone to receive less care. Think about the accessibility of the meeting. Can the person hear you, can they read what you write, can they understand the concept you use? Where necessary, consider how suitable interpretation or communication support will be provided. Do not substitute the presence of a companion for the person’s own expression of their will.

Empathy should not be limited to the person who says they are a victim. See also the humanity of the person under accusation of a crime, of the other side, of a witness and of the child in the file. Defending does not mean adopting the conduct attributed. You cannot tie a person’s right to receive legal assistance to the social sympathy felt for them.

When reading Özkent’s advice about distance from the client, this distinction needs to be preserved. A professional boundary does not mean humiliating the person or disregarding their feelings. An attorney who clearly determines the fee and the working arrangement can at the same time be warm, patient and attentive. If you see all people as individuals trying to use you, you damage the possibility of trust right at the start of the meeting. [K1, §901–902, p. 299–302]

To understand a person, you do not need to agree with them; you need to take them seriously.

Learn to listen, to speak and to meet objections

Being a good listener does not mean never steering the conversation. When necessary, gather up the subject, have an unclear word explained, ask about a missing fact. Learn the account through an open-ended question; use more limited questions when confirming a date, an amount and a specific transaction. There is no single correct form for every question. Frame the question according to what you want to learn.

When speaking, use short and understandable sentences. When a legal term is necessary, explain it. Let your voice be audible; adjust its loudness, speed and pauses to the circumstances of the meeting. Do not forget that the person you are explaining to may be hearing the subject for the first time. Your listing information quickly does not make them understand at the same speed.

State your professional opinion firmly. At the same time, do not be afraid to say “on the present documents”, “if this point is confirmed” or “I cannot speak definitively on this point”. Appearing certain at the cost of hiding an uncertainty is not credibility. The directness of words carries value together with the accuracy of your explanation.

When an objection comes, understand its content before interpreting it as disrespect. Is the objection to the fee, the method, the timing, or a risk not explained before? Ask, “Could you tell me a little more about the part that makes you hesitate?” Acknowledge the justified side of the objection; explain with reasons the side you do not agree with. You do not have to accept every objection; you do have to take all of them seriously.

When you face anger, do not rise to the same volume. Make sure the person is heard; also state clearly that the meeting will not proceed with insults and threats. Empathy does not mean unlimited tolerance of bad treatment of you or your employee. Keeping the meeting going in a safe and respectful way is everyone’s responsibility.

Think about your body language; but do not suppose you can decode people from gestures. Constantly looking at the clock or attending to another screen can weaken communication. On the other hand, a person’s not making eye contact, not shaking hands, trembling or moving in an unusual way is not proof of moral or professional inadequacy. Take into account cultural difference, personal boundaries and accessibility needs. Do not impose physical contact.

Humor can ease a conversation; consider its place and its addressee. Do not make trauma, poverty, gender, identity or a person’s lack of knowledge the subject of humor. Do not expect a person describing pain to cheer you up. Warmth requires a deeper attentiveness than being able to make the same joke to everyone.

If you will address a group, determine in advance who will listen, what you want them to learn and your time. Give the roadmap in the introduction; link the main problem, the basis, the options and the conclusion. Use a timeline, a comparison or a simple visual when needed. Do not read the slide word for word. Make sure your examples contain no actual file secrets.

Rehearse. Think about the difficult questions that may be asked. On a question you do not know, instead of producing improvised certainty, say that you will research it. At the end of the talk, let the person have a useful thought, an understandable note or a way to reach a reliable source. Standing, making a certain gesture or speaking loudly is not a mandatory formula for success for everyone.

The value of your persuasive power lies not in the degree to which you narrow your audience’s right to think, but in the degree to which you make your reasoning understandable.

Get back to your client and inform them; because it is their right

Accept informing as part of your professional duty

Your client’s learning the state of their file is not a privilege they request of you. You are handling work that concerns their life, their money, their family or their freedom. They must be able to understand what has been done, what stage has been reached, what risks exist and what comes next.

One of the most shattering reproaches a client can direct at their attorney is that they were not called back and not informed. To the waiting of the proceedings is added the uncertainty of being unable to reach one’s own attorney. Neglect in communication erodes the foundation of the relationship of trust. People often wait not only for the result; they also want to know that something is being done for them and that their file has not been left without an owner.

The duties of loyalty and care within the mandate relationship, and the duty to account, are among the legal bases of this responsibility. Articles 506 and 508 of the Turkish Code of Obligations should be assessed together. Accounting cannot be reduced to a statement of money movements alone; explaining how the work undertaken was carried out is also important. The scope and timing of the duty to inform relate to the nature of the work and the specific development. [K3, Art. 506 and 508; K6, p. 307]

Do not wait for the client to remind you each time. Especially when a decision, the outcome of a hearing, an important notification, a settlement proposal, a need for expenses or a new risk arises, think of the duty to inform on your own initiative. Convey matters that require instructions together with the explanation needed for them to decide.

See the difference between giving an answer and giving a legal explanation

“Your file is continuing” is not always sufficient information. The client may want to know why the file is continuing and what is being awaited. Communicating the date of the next hearing and explaining which issue will be taken up at that hearing are different tasks. Sending the decision and explaining what the decision means and the option of applying against it are not the same either.

Understandable informing should, as far as possible, answer these questions:

• Which action was taken or which development occurred?
• What is its effect on the file and on the client’s situation?
• Which matter is still uncertain?
• What is the next action and who needs to take it?
• Which document, decision or payment is expected from the client?
• When will the next check or the next update take place?

Make important legal explanations in language the person will understand. Saying “interim decision”, “finalization”, “appeal before the regional court of appeal (istinaf)” or “expert report” does not show that the meaning of these concepts is known. When necessary, supplement the explanation with a short written summary. Instead of settling for the question “Did you understand?”, confirm together what will be done, especially on a matter that may cause a loss of rights.

Report the result of your check even when there is no development

That there is no new action in the file does not mean the attorney is not attending to the file. But the client cannot know this on their own. Within a suitable arrangement, report also the result of the check you made. Convey only the situation you actually checked; do not give habitual assurances about a file you have not seen.

For example, the language of notification that can be used is this: “I checked the file today. There is no new decision at this stage. The action awaited is the submission of the report to the file. No additional documents are needed from you at this stage. If there is a new development I will inform you separately; I will check the status again on the date we planned.” This is not a statement about a real file but an example of expression showing how informing can gain clarity.

Do not apply the frequency of informing in the same way to every matter. The communication needs of a file requiring urgent protection and of a file in which an external action is awaited for a long time differ. Do not behave as if a single response time set by statute applied to all attorney work. On the other hand, determine a response arrangement that can be applied within the office and keep to the time you give.

Give bad news honestly and on time too

Postponing the explanation of an unfavorable decision does not change the outcome; it may reduce the client’s time to assess and decide. Explain the scope of the decision, its reasoning, the possibility of applying against it, its cost and its uncertainties. Do not use language that places every unfavorable outcome on the court or the other side. If there is a deficiency in your own work, address it separately and honestly.

Being able to listen to the client’s anger is also part of professional maturity. Before going on the defensive, understand what they are objecting to. Are they reacting to the outcome of the decision, to the expectation previously given to them, or to the lack of information? This distinction ensures that the conversation takes place on the right ground.

Ensure accessibility through a working arrangement

It may not be possible to answer every call at that moment. You may be at a hearing, in a meeting or in intensive research. But you must have a system that prevents an unanswered call from being forgotten. Calls and messages should be recorded, urgent ones separated, and a person responsible for returning them and a time for returning them determined. If a promised conversation is postponed, the new time must be communicated.

This arrangement is not a promise of unlimited access at every hour of the night. Explain from the start your working hours, the usual channel of communication and how genuine emergencies are to be reported. When setting a limit, do not make the client feel abandoned; while taking care of the client, also protect your own working and resting arrangement.

Give information to the right person. Closeness, kinship or having paid the fee does not by itself mean authority to receive information about the file. Check identity and authority; determine the scope of the document to be shared and the secure means of transmission. Preserve meticulously the boundary between informing the client and disclosing professional secrecy to third parties.

Your client should not have to guess the state of their file from your silence.

Listen to the complaint and honestly repair the relationship

“No one is complaining” does not mean everyone is satisfied. Some people hesitate to voice their problem; others stay silent because they think they will not get an answer anyway. At appropriate stages of the file, ask whether the communication has been understandable, what information has been missing and whether promises given have been kept.

You can obtain feedback with an open question: “Was there a subject in this process that we should have explained more clearly?”, “Did you have difficulty reaching us?”, “Do you know the next step and what is expected of you?” A short evaluation form can also be used. Do not make participation mandatory; do not turn it into pressure to write a good review, to refer others or to recommend you to everyone. This information is for correcting the service.

When a complaint comes, first examine the event and the records. Tell the person what you have understood. Maintain the difference between giving an explanation and listing excuses. If a promise to get back has not been kept, acknowledge it; state when and how you will make up for it. If there is a possibility of legal error, assess its effect separately and do not delay the necessary measure and explanation.

The person making the complaint must know whom to turn to in your office. They should not have to tell the same story each time by going around the staff. Determine the person who will follow the problem and the time of reply; after the solution, check whether things have really improved. It may not be possible for every complaint to end in the desired way. Even so, a reasoned, respectful and timely reply can be given.

Do not turn a disagreement about the fee into a matter of personal pride. Explain the contract, the scope of the work and the accounts; if there is an incorrect accrual, correct it. Consider routes of discussion for a resolution. On the other hand, there is no general professional rule that “an attorney must never bring a lawsuit for a fee receivable”. You may protect your legal right through appropriate means. Do not adopt as a method putting pressure on the debtor at their workplace or obtaining payment by embarrassing them. [K2, Art. 163–164]

When the file or the working relationship ends, close it with care too. Explain the completed actions, the continuing obligations, the documents, the money account and any approaching time limits. Make the necessary handover. Do not regard a loss of rights in a file taken over by another attorney as a result of professional competition. The end of the work is not the end of the entrusted information and of professional respect.

Your answer to a complaint says more than how much your office praises itself.

Write what you did, do what you wrote, and write again what you did

Write what you did. Do what you wrote. Write again what you did. The moment a liberal-profession attorney begins to institutionalize is the moment they acquire this ability to work. An attorney working alone too can build a professional operation that is orderly, auditable and continuous.

For institutionalization you must first know what you have done. In which file was which action completed? Which instruction was received? Which document is missing? Which time limit has begun to run? What is the next step? If the answers to these questions exist only in your memory, your working arrangement can easily be affected by your illness, your fatigue or that day’s workload.

Record what you did accurately and on time

After a meeting, record the important explanation, the instruction and the agreed work. After a hearing, review the minutes; write down the effect of the decision given on the work plan. Keep in the file the correct version of the petition sent, its attachments and the record of dispatch. Do not let the record that a task has been done be confused with the intention that it be done.

A record may be short; it should not be incomprehensible. Instead of writing “Called”, state with whom, about which file and when the conversation took place and what action came out of it. Do not accumulate unnecessary personal details. The work record should keep the information necessary for professional purposes securely.

The duty to keep files in an orderly manner under Article 52 of the Attorneyship Law is also one of the legal bases of this approach. The arrangement proposed here is a professional method concerning how that duty can be made concrete in daily work. [K2, Art. 52]

Turn what you wrote into a workable plan

After every important record, determine the work to be done. “The file will be looked at” is in most cases a vague expression. Write the matter to be examined, the output expected, the person responsible and the time of the check. Separate the statutory final day from the office’s own working date. The internal working date should allow checking and correction before the final day arrives.

If you are delegating work to someone else, do not just send the file. Explain the scope of the task, the necessary documents, the assessment expected and the delivery time. Check that the person assigned understands the work and is in a position to do it. An attorney’s professional responsibility does not end automatically by telling a staff member or a colleague.

Record again what was done, together with the result and notification

When the work is completed, write what was done, by which document or record it was verified and what will be done after that. If there is a dispatch error, a missing attachment or an action that did not produce the expected result, do not mark it as completed. Determine the necessary correction and check.

The information to be given to the client is also part of this work. Having submitted the petition does not remove, where necessary, the duty to explain its result to the client. When you connect the file record, the action and the informing, both you and the people you work with can see the real state of the file.

The minimum work record that can be used for this arrangement is as follows:

Do not put the record system in the place of thinking

That every box is filled in does not show that the file is being managed correctly. Writing an incorrectly calculated time limit into a nice table does not make it correct. Institutionalization should support legal judgment. It should be clear from your records why the work was done and what result it produced.

At regular intervals, review open matters, unanswered applications, approaching time limits and recurring mistakes. When you make a correction, update the method too. If a mistake is remedied only in that file and the same working fault continues in other files, the learning is not complete.

While reducing the dependence of tasks on individuals, do not give up confidentiality. Build an arrangement in which an authorized person can take over the file when necessary; do not build a structure in which everyone has unlimited access to every file. Backups, access permissions and how work will be continued in the case of unavoidable absence are part of this arrangement.

Institutionalization means that it is traceable by whom, when and how a promise given was fulfilled.

Make the workflow visible and do not leave responsibility ownerless

Putting on paper how a task proceeds is useful regardless of the size of the office. With what information does the work begin, who receives it, what is done, who checks it, what output is produced and to whom is it reported? If these links of the flow are not visible, the problem is often not merely individual carelessness. A task can be lost among people who are thought to have taken it over but did not.

Determine a person responsible for every basic task. If the person who actually does the work and the person who will make the final legal assessment are different, write this down explicitly. Let it be known who will step in during an absence or an increase in workload. Do not let the expression “We are all attending to it” turn into an arrangement in which no one looks at the result.

When defining the process, also determine the criterion for its start and its end. Downloading a document is not reviewing it. Preparing a draft is not sending the approved text. Making a dispatch is not a substitute for checking that the record has been created and has gone to the right file. If these distinctions are not written down, everyone gives the same word “completed” a different meaning.

For example, a notification workflow should answer these questions: Who received the document? Who matched it with the file? Which attorney assessed the time limit and the need for action? Who will do the preparation? Who will do the final check? With which record will the action and the notification be closed? This is not a legal scheme describing the time computation of a particular procedure, but a working example showing the linking of responsibilities.

Another example is the collection and settlement process. When a payment arrives, the amount must be matched with the file, entered in the account and communicated to the authorized person. If there is a partial payment, a discount or a request for additional time, it must be clear who will assess it and what instruction is required. A follow-up task given to administrative staff does not by itself turn into the authority to make a decision that creates a settlement, a release from liability or a loss of rights. Verify the settlement made and the payment received separately. [K10, p. 5–9]

First see the existing operation, then improve it

Observe for a while how the work is really done. Where is paperwork waiting, how many times is the same information written, how much effort do people spend finding a document, which decision always accumulates with the same person? Do not settle for preparing a beautiful scheme that only describes what should be. See the difference between the arrangement on paper and daily practice.

Define the tasks, examine the current flow, select the point that is failing, determine the change to be made and who is responsible for it, implement it and check the result. Involve the employees in this process. The suggestion of the person who experiences the difficulty of the work every day may reveal a problem not visible from the management desk.

Reduce unnecessary repetitions and detours; do not remove checks that ensure legal safety merely to gain speed. While delegation of authority can be made in a low-risk, routine administrative action, a different oversight is needed when a critical time limit or the client’s waiver of a right is involved. Collecting the same number of signatures for every task is not good management, and neither is checking no task at all.

Training is part of the process arrangement. If you give a person only a list of things to do and do not explain the reason for the work, you make it harder for them to decide in an unexpected situation. Teach on what matter they can act on their own, in what situation they should stop and ask, and whom to reach when an urgent problem arises.

When acquiring a tool or software, determine which problem it will solve. An expensive program that is not used does not provide institutionalization. Reliable records, a clear distribution of tasks, authorized access, backups and the ability to restore are important. Think in advance about how the file will be continued in the case of an employee leaving, illness or loss of a device. Do not leave the password and access arrangement to personal loyalty.

Doing a task well is valuable; building an arrangement that can show the same care again is the next step of professional maturity.

Do not entrust time and time limits to your memory

Adopt Özkent’s advice “Do not leave time limits to the last day” as you start in the profession. It is not right to carry the old appeal periods given in the source text to today; what we must preserve is the discipline of not squeezing preparation and filing into the last day. [K1, §908, p. 307]

Before a time limit is written into the calendar, it must be calculated legally. Examine the type of action, the event that starts the period, the nature of the notification and any special regulation. Record what information the start and end dates are based on. If there is an issue of holidays, electronic notification or special procedure, do not apply a general habit to all files.

Let the preparation date, the check date and the legal final day be visible separately. In critical actions, use a second check as far as possible. If you work alone, check again at a different time; do not count the calendar alert as the only safeguard. Compare the file and the calendar regularly, in case a notification system fails to work.

In an electronic filing, do not forget the difference between having prepared the text and having completed the action. The right file, the right version of the document, the necessary attachments, the signature, the fee if any, and the result of the dispatch must be checked. Keep the record of the action taken. If a technical problem occurs, immediately assess the applicable legal possibilities and the documentation regarding that problem.

Time management also has a human side. Do not keep a person who has come to their appointment waiting without explanation. Do not delay unnecessarily the answer you will give to your colleague. When it becomes clear that you will not be able to finish a task, do not say so at the last moment. Another person’s time does not become worthless because of your workload.

Responsibility is starting the work on time, before remembering the final day.

Reduce procrastination and build your working day consciously

If you keep postponing a task, do not tell yourself only “I must be more disciplined.” Is the task unclear, do you not know how to begin, is a necessary document missing, are you shying away from making a mistake, or are you carrying more work than your capacity? As the cause changes, so does the solution. You cannot remove uncertainty with more self-criticism.

Break the task into a step that can be started. Instead of “Finish the petition,” first work out the sequence of events, then determine the points of dispute, then research the missing source. Take the first concrete step without losing sight of the whole task. Do not let planning turn into endless preparation that covers up the fear of starting.

Begin the day with a short assessment of priorities. Distinguish the work that carries a risk of loss of rights, the pending work of someone else, and the task that requires intense thought. Not every caller’s matter is equally urgent; the time limit of a file that sits silent, on the other hand, may be truly critical. Do not set priority according to the loudness of the caller’s voice.

Place work that requires intense attention in as uninterrupted a block of time as possible. You may set check intervals for e-mail and ordinary messages; but have a separate arrangement so that you do not miss official notifications tied to time limits and genuine emergencies because of this habit. While focusing on a single task, do not make other obligations invisible.

Let the purpose, participants and duration of meetings and appointments be defined. A rule such as limiting the phone to three minutes for everyone may prevent a complex or sensitive subject from being understood. Prevent needless prolongation; do not cut short necessary listening. Assign a task to the appropriate person, define the work to be delivered and set the time of the check.

Write down what you will not do as well as what you will do. Formatting the same document over and over, following irrelevant notifications, or re-debating every small decision can consume the working day. Be able to give up a low-value habit to make room for an important task. Nevertheless, do not count rest and human relationships altogether as inefficiency.

Prepare for the next day the evening before. Let the file, the documents, the bag, the connection details and the necessary materials be ready. Tidy your desk and your digital workspace; leave open tasks noted down. Even tying your choice of clothing to a simple routine can reduce unnecessary decision load. But do not make a single wake-up time, outfit or daily schedule the measure of success for all attorneys.

Think together about your own work rhythm, mandatory hearings and life responsibilities. A goal of waking early cannot take the place of sufficient rest. Review your notification and screen habits before sleep; set up your genuine emergency-access arrangement separately. Do not burden yourself as an obligation with categorical and unsourced rules such as “The first two hours are the most productive time for everyone.”

Try not to fill the day, but to complete the work that advances your responsibility.

Let your writing carry your thought and your legal request

To write well, you must first know what you want to say. When you open the petition, ask yourself which fact the reader of this text should understand and which legal consequence they should assess. If the answer is unclear, work on the file a little more before you begin to write.

Narrate the events in the necessary order. Link every important claim with the evidence it rests on. Explain why the rule you want applied fits the specific case. Make sure the section of requests is consistent with the legal assessment you developed in the text. Do not give the same word different meanings in different places; check names, dates and amounts separately.

For a text to be strong it does not need to be showy. Put the reasoning before the reader. Unnecessary insult, anger and ornate expression do not strengthen a legal claim. Nor is it necessary to repeat every word of the other side at the same length; set out the decisive point clearly.

On the other hand, in the name of clarity, do not cut the necessary detail. A comprehensive file may require a comprehensive text. The problem is not length alone; it is what each paragraph adds to the work. Keep the necessary fact, objection, evidence and exception. Sift out unnecessary repetitions of the same thought.

When you finish a text, read it with a different eye. Test the first draft, which you wrote adopting the client’s account, this time by taking into account the other side’s strong objection. Then consider whether a reader unfamiliar with the legal assessment could understand the main issue. A grammar and spelling check does not take the place of a legal check; both must be done.

Writing understandably is taking on responsibility for your thought.

At the hearing, your ability to listen speaks as much as your preparation

When you go into a hearing, determine what you want to learn and clarify as much as what you will say. Which point of dispute is important? Which explanation could resolve a contradiction in the file? Against which decision might you need to put forward which request? Preparation must include the flexibility to respond to a changing situation.

While the other person is speaking, do not be content with waiting for your own sentence. Really listen to the judge’s question, your colleague’s objection, the witness’s statement. Do not let the text you prepared in advance prevent you from hearing an important point that arises in the course of the hearing.

Monitor your tone of voice and your words. Determination and anger are different things. When you object to a procedural problem, state clearly its legal basis and the action you want. When necessary, make sure the statement and the request are entered correctly in the minutes; read the minutes. Do not leave the hearing without knowing how your words are recorded in the file.

Before the hearing, explain to your client how the process will work. Explain their rights, what is expected of them, and that they must not show certainty contrary to the truth on a matter they do not know. This preparation cannot be used to change events or to produce a memorized account. Professional care serves understanding the truth and expressing it in accordance with the law.

The practice of law cannot be done with fear

The practice of law cannot be done with fear. This sentence does not mean a person will never feel fear. It says that fear must not be made the determinant of professional decisions. If you give up an objection that should be raised, a right that should be protected or explaining an unlawfulness merely so as not to disturb the powerful, the meaning of independent defense erodes.

Against conceptions in which state power is exalted and objecting to authority can be seen as disloyalty, the jurist’s measure must be the right of the human being and the limits of the law. The legitimacy of the state is thought of together with the law that protects the human being. We cannot accept a conception of the profession that sacrifices the citizen’s right to the state’s comfort and the defense to the pleasure of the office.

Behave respectfully toward the judge, the prosecutor and the public official; protect your professional independence. Respect does not require you to withdraw your justified request. The office of the person you address does not remove the need to examine the legal reasoning. A reasoned objection can be made in a measured yet resolute language. Likewise, your own title gives you no right to treat another person badly.

When the pressure of an authoritarian conception of government on the law increases, the independence of the defense does not become less important. The jurist must remind a mentality that automatically regards every demand of the state as superior of human rights and legal safeguards. Professional stance cannot be measured by the courage we show only while defending the rights of those who share our views. The right of the person who is disliked, left alone and unheard requires the same seriousness.

The courage of defense needs to be supported by knowledge. Asserting loudly a provision you do not know does not contribute to a justified struggle. Verify the fact, determine the legal basis, use the appropriate route of application and record the action taken. Depending on the nature of the obstacle you face, consider the support of the bar association and of mechanisms of professional solidarity.

The United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers (Birleşmiş Milletler Avukatların Rolüne Dair Temel İlkeleri) emphasize that attorneys can work free from pressure and improper interference, that they are not identified with their clients because of their duties, and the confidentiality of professional communication. These are international professional standards; they cannot be used alone as a provision of a law in Türkiye or as a decision that determines the outcome of a specific file. [K5, principles 16–18 and 22]

The senior colleague who expects courage from a young attorney must also stand beside them. When they object to a rights violation, you cannot leave them alone and then accuse them of not being brave enough. Professional courage has an institutional responsibility as much as an individual one.

The strength of the law is tested not in telling the powerful that they are right, but also in being able to show the limit of power.

Protect your independence against your client too

Loyalty to the client does not mean fidelity to an unlawful instruction. A lawsuit that is wanted filed in anger, an unfounded accusation or an action aimed at intimidating the other side must be passed through the professional filter. Protecting the client’s legitimate interest sometimes requires explaining that the route they want is wrong.

Do not promise a result immediately after hearing the matter. Özkent’s warning against early and immoderate assessment is valuable here. Today we cannot read this advice as appearing valuable by hiding information from the client. The right approach is not to speak with certainty without sufficient examination, and then to explain the legal opinion formed with its bases and limits. [K1, §902, p. 301–302]

What the client wants to hear and what they need to hear may differ. If the evidence is insufficient, if there is a time-limit problem, or if the desired result does not appear legally possible, explain it. A relationship built by hiding uncertainty can later turn into a heavier problem of trust. When sharing your legal opinion, do not present it as a guarantee of result. [K4, Art. 34]

Maintain the same independence in a file close to your circle, your political opinion or your social belonging. Liking a person should not make their account stand in place of evidence. Disliking a person should not lead you to ignore their rights.

If the expertise the work requires exceeds your time, knowledge or existing means, assess this honestly. Consider the options of getting support, researching or not taking on the work. When you must leave work you have taken on, however, observe the client’s rights and the obligations that apply. The right to say “no” is not an authority to leave the work ownerless without explanation.

Protect professional secrecy in your daily habits

Keeping a secret is not only a matter of not publishing a document. Your conversation in the corridor, your screen left open, a message sent to the wrong person, your shared printer or a case you tell at a training meeting may also concern confidentiality. Not saying the name of the file does not in every case prevent the person from being recognized.

Do not make professional secrecy the material of a story that arouses curiosity. A well-known person’s having applied to you does not give you the privilege of telling this in your social circle. The end of the work does not automatically end the responsibility of secrecy either. Even if the work was not taken on, the obligation of professional secrecy may arise with respect to the information learned in the meeting. [K2, Art. 36; K4, Art. 37]

Limit the access of the people you work with to the file according to need. Do not teach a trainee confidentiality only through a signed text; show how to behave when sending e-mail, giving information by phone and storing documents. Make sure that a mistake is reported quickly. Where saying a mistake is feared, confidentiality problems too are noticed late.

When using artificial intelligence and similar digital tools, you must know where the information you upload goes, who can access it and for what purpose it can be used. Deleting names does not make every file safe to share. Assess permission, professional secrecy, data protection and technical security separately. Do not move a sensitive file to an uncontrolled environment for the sake of convenience.

You verify the text, the decision, the quotation and the legal conclusion that are produced. A fluent answer does not show that a correct source has been found. Putting a decision number without a source into a petition is not making use of technology but abandoning professional oversight. The tool may change; responsibility for the work you do remains with you.

A life told to you in trust is not an interesting story to tell.

Talk openly about the return for your work

Do not be ashamed to discuss the fee. Determine in an understandable way the scope of the legal assistance, the stages it includes, the expenses and the payment arrangement. A fee left vague can become a source of dispute for both the attorney and the client after the work is finished.

For this reason Özkent’s advice “Fix your fee” keeps its importance. At the same time, the historical statement in the source text that a fee cannot be claimed without a written contract is not today’s general rule. Articles 163 and 164 of the Attorneyship Law separately regulate the proof of unwritten agreements and the situations in which the fee has not been agreed or the contract is problematic. A written contract matters for clarity and proof; its absence does not in every case remove the right to a fee. [K1, §903, p. 302–303; K2, Art. 163–164]

You do not have to try to justify your fee by describing your living expenses. Explain the scope and conditions of the work. Listening to the client’s economic situation and constantly leaving your work uncertain and uncompensated are different things. Closeness, friendship or an invitation does not by itself determine the scope of legal assistance.

Do not confuse the fee with litigation expenses. Keep separate the accounts of the sums received and the expenditures made on behalf of the client. When a dispute over the attorney’s fee arises, do not assume that you can retain without limit every sum or document you hold. The scope of the rights in this area, their conditions and the notification obligations must be assessed separately.

Work taken on through legal aid and other appointments deserves the same care. The file of a person with few economic means does not carry a lower professional responsibility. On taking on a case without a fee, also observe the rules in force, especially the regulation on notification to the bar association. [K2, Art. 164; K4, Art. 46]

Protect the value of your work; do not measure the value of a person by the fee they pay.

Manage the budget of the work and its changing scope alongside the fee

Do not regard the economic side of a file as consisting only of your own fee. The litigation expenses the client may face, the need for expert examination, translation, travel or other mandatory actions may also enter the assessment. Explain what is known at the beginning; do not present as certain items whose amount is not yet known. State the assumption on which an estimate is based.

When writing the scope of the work, explain what is included and which development will require separate assessment. When a new lawsuit, a different application or unexpected technical work arises, do not let the client find out afterward that they thought these were within the initial fee. Discuss the change of scope and its economic effect in time. If a new instruction is needed, obtain and record it.

Controlling the budget does not mean not doing a necessary legal action merely because it is cheap. Do not repeat the same work unnecessarily; consider whether a more suitable and reliable method exists. Unnecessary travel for a meeting that could be held remotely, re-obtaining a document because you cannot find the existing one, and doing the same research twice because of an unclear division of tasks may add no value for the client.

In work calculated by the hour, do not write time that was not actually spent. Do not pass on to the client, without questioning, the whole burden of unnecessarily prolonging a routine task through inexperience. Under a fixed fee too, do not later expand the scope without limit. Whichever method is used, the account must be understandable and consistent with the contract.

In a fee discussion, do not try to make the price you present look trivial by enlarging the person’s fear. Do not describe the worst possible outcome as if it were certain to occur and then place yourself in the position of savior. Explain honestly the weight and uncertainty of the risk. Talk about the price of your work on that basis.

Quoting an unreal initial price in order to leave room for bargaining, or assuming that the same discount rate will work in every relationship, is not a reliable method. Observe the fee rules to be applied and the minimum fee schedule. The payment plan, the scope of the work and the means of the parties can be discussed together. Do not turn a discount or a free service into a promotion used to attract clients.

Clarity in the fee is not only stating how much you will charge, but making clear what responsibility you take on in return.

Do not confuse economic independence with show

Experiencing economic hardship in the first years of the profession does not show that you are untalented or worthless. Family support, place of residence, working opportunities and starting conditions differ. If you compare your own development only with another attorney’s visible earnings, you may overlook the conditions and the unseen labor.

I do not adopt Özkent’s account about not appearing to be in need as advice that justifies distrust of a poor or sick person. The thought to be protected is to strengthen professional independence and to prevent the exploitation of a person’s being hard-pressed. A person’s income level, health or outward appearance cannot be the measure of their morality and legal competence. [K1, §904–905, p. 303–305]

Know your expenses. Do not plan an uncollected fee as if it were money in hand. Strictly separate the funds entrusted by the client from your own economic needs. When setting up an office, do not confuse your need to work with your desire to show off. An expensive venue does not make up for an unread file and an unanswered question.

In pursuits of earnings outside the profession too, take into account the independence of the profession, the incompatibility provisions and the limits of your own knowledge. We cannot generalize Özkent’s warning on this subject to mean that every investment will surely lose or that every additional activity is forbidden. The occupations that cannot be combined with practicing as an attorney, and the exceptions, are assessed according to the nature of the work within the framework of Articles 11 and 12 of the Attorneyship Law. [K1, §906, p. 305–306; K2, Art. 11–12]

Build a clean, careful setting suited to the purpose of work. Personal grooming, suitability for private conversation, an orderly archive and accessibility are important. Do not turn these into a condition of expensive clothing, a certain body appearance or a single lifestyle.

Plan the future of your office and do not lose your sense of proportion in hard times

Being a liberal-profession member does not mean that economic and administrative tasks will run by themselves. Think about which competence you will develop in the coming year, which expense you can bear and how much work you can carry out with care. Have a direction for your professional life five or ten years from now; but do not regard this direction as an unchangeable prophecy.

A written work plan can answer these questions: What is this office’s purpose? Which values will we remain committed to? What are our strengths and the aspects we need to develop? Which work can we carry out with which means? What will we improve in the coming period? Who will be responsible? With which records will we see progress? These links are what take the plan out of being an abstract wish for success. [K10, p. 2, 9 and 23–24]

Do not let your goal stay at the level of “Becoming a better office.” Choose concrete improvements such as preventing unanswered applications from being lost, standardizing file handover, reviewing a particular research task each month, or closing expense records on time. If you use a numerical measure, understand what it measures. A large number of phone calls does not prove that the conversations contained sufficient information.

Alongside earnings, follow cash flow. Do not count a not-yet-collected fee as the same as a definite payment obligation. Make realistic calculations for fixed expenses, periodic obligations and unexpected needs. Where financial and technical matters exceed your own competence, obtain support from the appropriate expert; clearly determine the scope and responsibility of the service obtained from outside.

When economic hardship occurs, do not suppose that you can fix the situation by taking on every job. Work exceeding your knowledge or capacity may give rise to heavier responsibility alongside the expectation of short-term income. Preserve the care of existing files, review expenses, reduce unnecessary commitments. Learn the changing legal needs of a field; do not set up an activity that exploits desperation.

Excessive dependence on a single client or a personal relationship may complicate your economic decisions. Assess this risk through a lawful working arrangement and financial planning. Do not use the idea of variety of work to reduce people to sources of income. Remember that whoever introduces you to a person gains no authority over your professional opinion or the client’s secret.

In a crisis period, do not look only at the figures on your desk. Understand what has changed in the client’s business and life. Plan the meeting with respect for their time; do not apply pressure through unannounced visits or constant calls. If there is a new risk, explain it. While holding optimism about the future, do not belittle today’s difficulty.

Review the plan at regular intervals. Do not continue a method that does not work merely because you have put in much effort. Learn what you need to learn, drop the unnecessary expense and, if need be, change the goal or its timing. Base your decision on data and professional principle. See also the economic, social and judicial conditions outside your control; do not interpret every failure as personal worthlessness.

A plan is not a document that you know the future; it is an indication that you are taking responsibility toward the future.

Understand the corporate client’s business and think before problems arise

When working with a company or an organization, knowing only the contract clause in front of you may not be enough. Understand how the work is produced, who takes decisions, which documents are kept and which risks recur. Knowing the institution’s needs of time, budget and operation makes it easier for your legal opinion to be applicable.

Present your opinion in a form on which a decision can be made. What is the legal problem, on what assumptions is it being assessed, what are the options, and what are the risk of each option and the action to be taken? When you say “It cannot be done,” explain the reason; if there is a lawful alternative, show it. While seeking a solution, do not blur the legal limit.

Preventive legal work does not mean guaranteeing that no dispute will ever arise. Correcting a recurring contract mistake, ensuring employees keep correct records, clarifying the authority and signature arrangement, or reminding of the timing of a necessary application are important contributions. For every reminder, verify the real time limit and obligation in the relevant field of law; do not apply an example date found in one source to all matters.

If you will give training to the institution, start from the need. The legal, human resources, finance or operations team may not need the same detail. Let the employee learn in what situation to consult an attorney, which document to protect and which decision they cannot take on their own. After the training, let there be a usable method and a responsible person.

Do not confuse representing the company with following a manager’s personal business. Determine who your client is and who is authorized to give instructions and receive information. Bear in mind that the interests of the institution, the shareholder, the manager and the employee do not always point in the same direction. Having done a personal job well does not automatically authorize you to take on all the legal work of the organization.

If, after a completed task, you notice another legal need that is genuinely related, explain it with its scope and limit. If it is outside your field, consider the support of an appropriate colleague. Do not produce new needs merely to multiply service items; do not aim to keep the client dependent on you in every matter.

Know the limit of advisory work too. It is valuable that you can ask questions about business, accounting, tax, technical security or human behavior; you need not decide as if you were an expert in every field. Bring in the necessary expertise at the right time. While understanding the client’s cost concern, do not lose sight of the legal obligation and the rights of third parties.

Good counsel does not stop at answering the question that has arisen; it also makes visible the important question not yet asked.

Build your collaboration on openness as much as on excitement

Working with a colleague gives the possibility of sharing knowledge and workload. But collaborating with others is not a mandatory step of success for everyone. An attorney working alone can also build a sound arrangement. If you are going to decide to work together, think about what need it will meet and what responsibilities it will give rise to.

When choosing a collaborator, do not rely only on your friendship or on liking each other. Talk about honesty, professional standards, money management, work discipline and behavior at a moment of crisis. See each other’s strengths and aspects to be developed. Different competences can complement one another; a disagreement in the basic ethical outlook, however, may not be resolved by dividing tasks.

Try to understand past experiences and the way of doing business together. If a reference check is made, let it be relevant, measured and respectful of privacy. A person’s debt, illness or difficulty in life should not by itself turn into a verdict on character. If there are financial obligations that will affect the collaboration, they need to be discussed openly; do not regard a concealed obligation and a disclosed difficulty as the same.

Ask each other directly: Why do we want to work together? What kind of professional life do we envision in the coming years? How will we share the work and management responsibility? How will we decide in a difficult file or when income falls? On what matter can each of us act alone? How will we resolve a dispute when it arises?

Assess concretely the form of collaboration to be chosen, the professional rules to be applied and the necessary formalities. In the written arrangement, clarify the duties, the sharing of income and expenses, decision-making powers, responsibility for files, confidentiality, access and the process of departure. I am not proposing here a ready-made legal contract for collaboration; I am pointing out the matters that should not be left undiscussed.

As the office grows, management too becomes real work. Distribute responsibility for financial order, training people, continuity of service, client relationships, knowledge and process management, and the manager’s own development. Let no one be merely a person who shares income and leaves every administrative burden to others. Let authority and accountability go together. [K10, p. 15–17]

Do not continue a problematic collaboration vaguely merely because you were excited at the start. Assess what you have learned so far, what can improve, and what change and period this requires. Really implement the plan of change. If there is no improvement, manage the separation in accordance with the law, the promises given and the continuity of the files. Do not sacrifice the client’s right of choice and the confidentiality of information to a dispute among those who practice together.

In a good collaboration, trust does not cover over matters left unspoken; it makes it possible to speak of them honestly.

Do not turn a dispute with your colleague into personal hostility

You may not share the same view as the other side’s attorney. You may find their claim unfounded, you may object to the method they use. Learn to do this without attacking the person’s dignity. Legal struggle is not waged to belittle a colleague.

Your colleague’s being young does not mean their word should be heard with less attention. Their being older or senior does not mean that every assessment of theirs is correct. Direct your objection to its reasoning. Share information; do not count the needless complication of a procedural step as success.

Collegiality cannot be a justification for secretly giving up the client’s right. Under the name of friendship or courtesy you cannot exceed your instructions, and you cannot ignore a conflict of interest. A relationship that preserves solidarity and the duty of loyalty together must be built. Keep clear the scope of the decisions taken and the commitments given in negotiations.

Your behavior toward office staff, court personnel, the interpreter and members of other professions also shows your character. The language you direct at a person with less authority than you is as important as your courtesy before a person of rank. Stay away from a conception of relationships that values people only to the extent they can speed up your work.

Professional stature does not grow by diminishing someone else.

Show respect for every kind of labor in your office

In an office, many people’s labor may lie behind a file progressing well. See the contribution of the secretary, the administrative assistant, accounting support and other employees. Welcoming, accurate note-taking, document order, calendar and call follow-up help prevent many failures. Looking down on these tasks is misunderstanding the daily life of the office.

When selecting an employee, look at the real requirements of the position. Attention, orderliness, willingness to learn, awareness of confidentiality, communication and the necessary technical skills are important. Do not count choosing people on the basis of physical attractiveness, a certain age appearance or a personal-life pattern as a method of professional success. Assess the competence for each position with criteria related to the work.

Explain how the office works to the person who is starting. Teach which information to take when the phone rings, what not to disclose, how to convey urgency and whom to reach. Let them not feel obliged to invent an answer to a legal question they do not know. Let the boundary between administrative assistance and the legal assessment the attorney will make be clear.

Delegating does not mean that the person decides everything on their own. Determine what action they can take, which resources they can access and in what situation they will obtain approval. Provide the person to whom you give responsibility with the necessary tools, time and training. A person who knows the reason for the working procedure can ask a better question in an unexpected situation.

Be honest with your employees. Having them say “Not in the office” while you are in your place makes them part of a daily lie. The suitable expression is to explain that you are really not available for a meeting at that moment and when a call back will be made. Do not leave the burden of respect for the client to the employee while neglecting your own responsibility to call back.

Talk about the employee’s professional development, strengths and career wishes. Care about their pay, working conditions and need for rest. Appreciation does not take the place of fair compensation. Thank them when necessary; do not claim the contribution made as your own. Do not try to establish authority by scolding the employee in front of the client.

Build a shared working culture. Let people know by which values you decide. Spending time together and social events can contribute to this relationship; do not turn participation into a loyalty test that monitors private life. In a small office, different people may not be able to do every task; even so, functions and boundaries can be defined.

The respect you show the person who works with you is the unseen professional ethics of your office.

Being a master means being responsible for the development of the young colleague

When a young attorney or trainee begins to work beside you, you do not merely assign them tasks. You also teach them how you see the profession and how you carry responsibility. You cannot teach professional ethics by words alone to a trainee who sees you not getting back to a client, scolding staff or hiding your own mistake.

If the form of address “master” is to carry any weight, it must contain labor and responsibility. Read the text the young colleague has prepared. Explain what you corrected and why. Point out the places where their research caught something correctly. Do not turn a mistake into a verdict on their personality. Instead of saying “You can’t do this job,” talk about the shortcoming and how to remedy it.

Article 33 of the Union of Turkish Bar Associations (TBB) Professional Rules emphasizes the responsibility of paying attention to the trainee’s development and providing the means for it; Article 33/A emphasizes professional equality and respect for independence between an employed attorney and the attorney who employs them. These provisions show that a training relationship should not be seen as a personal favor. [K4, Art. 33 and 33/A]

You cannot reduce traineeship to carrying papers, waiting in lines or running private errands. Learning how the courthouse works is important; this must be combined with reading files, legal research, writing, observing meetings and evaluation. The learning purpose of the task given should be understood.

Make the young person’s labor visible. State their contribution honestly in writing and work produced together. Do not prevent them from asking questions. Set aside the time necessary for training; do not devalue the mandatory traineeship training on the ground of workload. Determine pay, duties and working conditions in a manner consistent with the legal nature of the relationship, clearly and fairly.

Do not accuse a young colleague who forms their own thinking of insubordination. When they find a better reasoning than yours, acknowledge it. That one day they can assess the file correctly even without you is the meaningful result of your training.

That the person you are training constantly needs you does not show that the training is complete; their being able to build their own judgment does.

When you become a manager, learn to teach and to assess fairly

That you are good at file work does not mean you automatically know how to manage people. You must think separately about what the attorney you work with needs to learn, what support they need and at what stage they can carry responsibility. Developing people is not imposing your own working speed and habits on someone else exactly as they are.

Set expectations clearly and provide room to learn

Showing a newcomer a pile of files and saying “Start” is not an adequate beginning. Set aside time for adaptation to the office and the task. Show a model piece of work; explain the sources used, the record-keeping arrangement and the stages of checking. Give close support in the first tasks; grant independence in appropriate measure as competence grows.

When assigning a task, explain the expected result, why it matters and its timing. Instead of a general warning like “Be more careful,” show which deficiency needs to be remedied. Do not assume the person has understood; ask them to explain in their own sentences how they will approach the task. Do not attribute every problem that arises without the necessary training to unwillingness.

Do not hold development conversations only at the moment of a mistake. Learn which area the young colleague is interested in, which skill they want to develop and what obstacle stands in front of them. Connect the daily task with their long-term professional development. This conversation does not mean they must open their private life to you. Listen to the extent they wish to share.

Examine performance without sticking a label on the person

If there is a problem, prepare with concrete examples. Which work failed to meet which expectation, and how? Is the record correct, is the distribution of work fair, are the resources sufficient? Generalizations such as “This generation is like that” or “You are irresponsible” are not explanations. Talk about the behavior and the result; do not judge the person’s whole identity.

Examine working conditions too. Inadequate tools, noise, poor lighting, excessive workload, unclear duties, unfair pay or a constant lack of appreciation can affect the quality of work. Do not load every new task onto the one who works well and then ask why they could not keep up. Do not reward success only with more load.

In the case of a sudden change, think about the human circumstances. Illness, loss, caregiving responsibility or another difficulty in their life may call for temporary support. Without trying to diagnose this or ask for intimate details, ask how you can arrange the work. Taking the person’s need into account and protecting responsibility for the file are possible together.

Make real room for listening in the meeting. Do not regard their defense from the start as an excuse. Ask what they expect from management and what obstacle they see. Criticism can be mutual; the unclear instruction you gave should also be open to discussion. An environment in which people can report problems without fear does not weaken professional oversight.

Build the development plan together and follow it

Determine an achievable, clear and time-limited development goal. For example, you may ask that a research note show the source and the opposing view together, that time-limit records be checked, or that a client-information draft be framed understandably. Alongside numbers, explain the quality criterion too.

Write down what support will be given: working together on a model, training, adjusting the workload, or closer oversight for a while longer? Let it be clear what the manager will do as well as what the employee will do. Set the date of the next assessment and actually hold that meeting.

Notice progress; make your appreciation concrete. Instead of saying “You worked well,” say which correct behavior contributed to the work. Do not humiliate people in front of everyone. When appreciating a contribution in front of a group too, do not turn it into a show that may make the person uncomfortable.

If the problem persists, do not leave it vague. Reassess expectations, support, suitability of the task and working conditions. When necessary, a change of duties or the end of the relationship may come onto the agenda; observe the legal obligations and human dignity. Do not produce an automatic dismissal formula from a single mistake; nor should you regard continually ignoring the same important mistake as fair management. [K10, p. 9–18]

Getting support from a mentor or a suitable professional can contribute to the manager’s own development as well. There is no need for the claim that every successful person must have a coach. If you will get support, assess the person’s competence, the method, confidentiality and your concrete need. No outside support removes management’s own responsibility.

A good manager is not only the person who finds the mistake; they are the person who ensures that the right work is learned and can be sustained.

Turn your traineeship into a conscious period of learning

My young colleagues, you too must be active in your responsibility to learn. Do not be content with completing the work given without understanding it. Ask what the action serves in the file. Examine the corrected version of the draft you prepared. Keep a personal learning record so as not to repeat the same shortcoming in your next piece of work.

After observing a hearing, do not write only what the outcome was. Which issue was discussed, which question brought clarity, which document gained importance, how was which request reasoned? Assess these. In observing a meeting too, think about where the attorney asked questions, which expectation they corrected and how they concluded the meeting.

Learn the limit of your authority. Do not determine by hearsay what a trainee may do in matters of actions, signature and representation. Check the relevant regulation and the assignment. Do not carry out alone, merely to look strong, work you do not know or are unsure you are authorized to do.

The plan below is not a regulation that changes the duration or the official program of the mandatory traineeship. It is a suggestion that can be adapted to learning activities beside an attorney:

At the end of the week, make a short evaluation. Identify a concept you learned, a point you misunderstood and a skill you will develop next week. Keep this record while protecting other people’s real file information. Let your development be visible not in the file names you have accumulated but in the work you can do more correctly.

Nourish your work as a jurist with life outside books

The law is applied within people’s relationships of working, housing, producing, starting a family and living together. Without knowing this life, it is hard to become a deep jurist merely by memorizing provisions. Try to understand the working conditions of a worker, the payment cycle of a small business, the difficulty an elderly person has in accessing a digital system, or how a child is caught in the middle of adults’ conflict.

Read literature; see how a person builds their own story. Read history; learn what struggles institutions and rights have passed through. Have a relationship with philosophy, sociology, economics and psychology. Do not use these fields to decorate yourself with a few concepts. Know the limit of your knowledge; work with the relevant expert when necessary.

If you are learning a foreign language, do not leave it as merely a line on your résumé. Try to bring it to a level at which you can read primary sources and notice differences of concept between legal systems. Do not immediately identify a foreign institution with a seemingly similar concept in Turkish law.

Let your social relationships not be only your professional circle. Do not assess people according to whether they will bring you files. Friendship, solidarity and a shared pursuit are valuable in themselves. An attorney cut off from social life runs the danger, after a time, of seeing people only in their state of being in dispute.

Take part, as far as your means allow, in the bar association’s training and rights-advocacy work. Share your knowledge; ask for help when necessary. It cannot be expected that every attorney will solve the common problems of the profession alone. Individual work ethics and institutional solidarity must complement one another.

To know people, do not look only at the case file; read life too.

Build bonds with people and do not turn anyone into a tool for business

Meet people in your professional life. Be able to introduce yourself simply at a meeting, ask a question about a common subject, listen to the person in front of you. Being introverted is not a defect of morality or competence. If you have difficulty communicating, develop your skill through small and natural encounters. Not everyone needs to be equally outgoing.

When you attend a conference, learn, ask questions when necessary, share your work. New acquaintances can be made; do not measure them by the number of business cards collected. Spending time with people you already know is not worthless in itself either. Attending with a colleague can support you; but do not stage scenes in which people praise one another and impress a third person with success stories.

Do not classify people by their clothing, their wealth or the work they could provide you. Do not approach a person standing alone at a gathering merely to practice before moving on to a more powerful group. They too have their own purpose, their time and a right not to want to talk. Sincere relationship can begin where the other person is not a tool.

If you want to take a role in an association, foundation, professional organization, trade union, or sports or cultural work, care about its purpose. Make a real contribution; do not acquire a title merely to be seen. When teaching law to students, do not calculate who will bring you work in the future. Social benefit is a value independent of any future commercial return.

While continuing communication, respect the other side’s preference. Sharing a requested source, thanking at a suitable time and congratulating a piece of work are humane behaviors. Do not turn these into unauthorized mass mailings, constant reminders of your services, or an arrangement for accumulating details of personal lives. Keeping contact information up to date is important; it is not collecting unnecessary data.

When introducing two people, consider the wishes of the parties and the limit of the information you will share. Do not tell others about your client’s business without their permission and an appropriate legal framework. Apply the same conflict-of-interest, competence and work-acceptance assessment to a person who comes on a friend’s recommendation. A recommendation does not reduce the need to examine the file with care.

Do not tie gifts, meals, entertainment, congratulations or attention on special days to a return in the form of winning work. Expecting a file from a gift bought for a client’s child distorts the meaning of human closeness. Do not use your help to produce a debt of gratitude. A person who does not recommend you to someone else has not failed to repay your good service.

The measure of loving people is being able to show them respect without knowing what they will earn you.

Write and teach, but do not make yourself the subject of advertising

Putting a matter you have researched into writing clarifies your thinking. A piece that can show its sources, its opposing views and its uncertainties contributes to professional discussion. When sharing your knowledge, think about what the reader will learn; do not make your visibility the basic purpose of the piece.

We can draw on the importance Özkent gave to writing. But we cannot read his account of recognition and professional fame in his period as an automatic permission under today’s prohibition on advertising. The purpose, content, presentation and manner of distribution of a piece should be assessed together. [K1, §910, p. 308–309]

Article 55 of the Attorneyship Law and the TBB Regulation on the Prohibition of Advertising (TBB Reklam Yasağı Yönetmeliği) are the basic regulations in this area. Article 7 of the Regulation, on online publications, concerns not only open advertising but also methods aimed at winning work and getting ahead of colleagues. Using the heading “Information” does not automatically make the content lawful. [K2, Art. 55; K8, Art. 7 and 11]

Do not present yourself with superlatives such as “the best,” “the most successful” or the like. Do not turn case results into a display of success. Do not try to build trust with client names, thank-you notes or file details. Do not place a constant call for services inside a piece that passes information to colleagues.

It is valuable for a piece to be easy to read, organized with correct headings and for its sources to be accessible. Technical work on enabling search engines to understand a text is not an area independent of the professional rules either. Misleading headings, hidden keywords, mechanical repetition of city and superiority expressions, and steering that goes beyond the purpose of education must not be used.

The purpose of this article too is not to put a person or an office ahead of other colleagues. It is to contribute to the thinking, the work and the understanding of responsibilities of the person newly starting in the profession. The value of a piece of advice does not rise with how much its giver praises themselves.

Keep the same professional standard in digital publishing and before the press

A website should enable the reader to find easily the legal information they are looking for and the permitted professional information. Let the headings be understandable, the links work, and the content be current and readable. Think of the person reading on a phone screen and the person with different needs in seeing or hearing. Unnecessary pop-ups, misleading redirects and forms that do not inspire trust make access to information harder.

Do not lengthen a piece merely to make it long; nor leave out a necessary detail for the sake of brevity. Check text that requires updating, correct mistakes and show the change honestly. Let the source, author, subject and date information be correct. The basic lesson to take here from Google’s approach to helpful content is to prepare the piece according to the reader’s need. Do not assume that a particular word count by itself provides a ranking advantage. [K11]

A technical arrangement cannot be a cover for prohibited promotion. When working on findability in search results, observe the limits of the Regulation on the Prohibition of Advertising (Reklam Yasağı Yönetmeliği) concerning methods aimed at winning work and getting ahead of colleagues. Do not add to the text a claim of superiority, expertise or success that does not in fact exist. A heading’s being clicked more does not show that it is the right choice professionally. [K8]

In letterhead, business cards, e-mail signatures and other contact details, let your real identity and role be clear; observe the permitted content limit. Do not present administrative staff as attorneys. When choosing an e-mail service, think not only of how the address looks but of security, continuity of access and management. Do not regard the use of a particular free service alone as an indicator of professional inadequacy. If you are setting up a digital space private to the client, deal with authorization control and confidentiality at the start of the design.

If you will use a social media account, know for what purpose you use it. You do not have to be on every platform. Do not measure your professional worth by outdated platform figures or by other people’s follower counts. Let the profile, photographs and permitted information reflect reality. Do not produce images and descriptions that present you differently from who you are.

When sharing legal information, explain the status in force and the limit of the subject. Do not announce a definitive personal conclusion in a comment box on the basis of incomplete information; do not encourage the sharing of secrets. Separate general information from the scope of concrete legal assistance. Do not assume either that all legal comments are subject to the same fee and relationship regime; assess what the specific work and the professional rules require.

Let it be clear what the person who posts on behalf of your office may publish and when they will ask for a legal check. Plan account security, access authority and the termination of the access of departing staff. A young employee’s using the platform well does not justify leaving them the entire responsibility for the decision to publish professionally.

When the press asks for an opinion, learn the subject, the questions and the time for the answer. Respond quickly; do not speak with certainty on a subject you have not examined enough. It is possible for you to say “I can examine it and get back to you at such a time.” Knowing the journalist’s deadline does not remove your responsibility for accuracy. Do not assume on your own that what you say will not be published.

When contributing to a current legal debate, do not bring in personal fame, advertising of a file and confidential information. Maintain the limit required by the ongoing work, the rights of the parties and professional obligations. Do not pass judgment on an event you do not know on the basis of a headline alone. If an important statement of yours has been conveyed incorrectly, ask for it to be corrected in an appropriate way.

Your having a political opinion or speaking on human rights is not a defect to be left outside your identity as an attorney. When taking part in public debate, separate fact from opinion, stay away from insult and remain bound to professional secrecy. Giving up thinking about rights violations for the sake of not being visible cannot be a right professional goal either.

In every sentence you publish, let your responsibility for accuracy come before your wish to be seen.

Read success books critically too

Question the book that gives advice, the speaker and the senior colleague. A sentence’s being impressive does not prove it is true. A business-development method’s being used in another country or another profession does not mean it is suitable for the practice of law in Türkiye. When drawing on sources of professional development, know which idea you adopt and which you change or reject, and why.

In the sources this article has drawn on, there are valuable thoughts on work, communication and management. In the same texts there are also suggestions that would not fit today’s understanding of the profession or that cannot be conveyed as verified information. Instead of passing over them silently, I would like to show the young colleague the following distinctions in particular. [K1; K9; K10]

Do not build your reputation by altering the truth

If your work is scarce, do not act as if you were very busy. Do not give the impression, in your first experience, that you have been doing the same work for years. Do not be unreachable merely to seem valuable. Artificial scarcity, staged praise and an exaggerated success narrative are not solid material on which to build trust. Knowing your real limit and developing it takes longer effort; this is the road you can professionally bear.

Do not regard your client as the “real boss” and submit to every wish. Care about their legally protectable interest; protect your independent professional opinion. Do not think that only people you like, find wealthy or believe to be right from the start are worth defending. The defense of an accused person is not conditional on adopting the accusation directed at them.

Do not confuse well-kept clothing with the value of a person. Do not assume that certain colors, jewelry, bag brands or body sizes provide professional competence. Do not form judgments about an employee or colleague from patterns of gender, age and outward appearance. Do not regard poverty and illness as signs of unreliability.

Do not get decisions made through gratitude, fear and wordplay

Understanding a person’s anxiety cannot be used to enlarge that anxiety in order to have a contract signed. Do not fall for the idea that you will steer a person’s will with words presented as “hypnotic.” Displaying similar behavior, imitating a shared interest or constantly flattering does not take the place of sincerity. Explain the legal reasoning; protect the person’s space to understand, think and say no.

Do not hide an expense under another name merely so that it is accepted more easily. Do not act as if you have removed uncertainty by wordplay. If there is a real necessity, explain it openly; do not present what is not necessary as an obligation. The purpose of polite language should be to strengthen the person’s capacity to decide.

Do not mistake a promotion tactic for a professional rule

Do not take as a ready-made list of practices the methods that appear in the sources: asking for references, collecting customer reviews, displaying thank-you letters, publishing client photographs, having others distribute cards, giving promotional agendas, pens or file folders, turning an emergency information card into a promotional tool, drawing in work with a free trial service, and constantly proposing services. A name such as “training,” “social relations” or “public relations” does not by itself change the purpose and nature of an activity.

Giving someone your card is not the same activity as turning restaurant staff into a network of intermediaries who will direct files to you. There is a difference between sharing professional knowledge and persistently offering work to unrelated people. A client’s permission to share is not regarded as a general permission removing all professional and advertising-related restrictions either. Assess the specific activity within the framework of the provisions in force. [K2, Art. 55; K8]

Do not put an impressive number or story in the place of evidence

Ask for the source and context of claims that success belongs to a certain percentage, that everyone becomes an expert in the same number of years, that a certain communication ratio holds in every meeting, or that a certain number of contacts will bring work. Without comparable data, do not make these a measure to be applied to your own life. Do not make generalizing commercial inferences about women, men or age groups the basis of your human relationships either.

Do not accept as verified scientific fact the narratives that thought physically pollutes water, that one can freeze to death in a cold storage room that is not running merely because one believed so, or that all outcomes in life arise only from one’s way of thinking. These stories are not used as proof of success in this article. The jurist’s measure of knowledge must work on a story they like as well.

Writing down your goal, rehearsing the hearing, practicing in your mind the explanation you will give and encouraging yourself may be parts of a useful preparation routine. Do not present these as hidden forces that make the outcome inevitable. See together work, circumstances, support, opportunities and factors outside your control. Do not tell a person who is struggling that they failed because they did not think positively enough.

Before adopting a piece of advice, ask not so much whether it is well put but whether it is true, humane and applicable.

Do not hide your mistake, and draw a working rule from it

When you notice a mistake, first assess its effect. Determine the action that can be taken to prevent or reduce a loss of rights. Get the necessary professional support. Do not postpone the explanation that must be made to the client because of your own discomfort. Altering records contrary to the truth adds a new problem to the first mistake.

Explaining the cause of a mistake merely as “absentmindedness” is in most cases insufficient. To whom had the work been given? Was the instruction clear? Had the time limit been calculated correctly? Had a check been made? Was the workload realistic? Why was it considered completed despite a missing document? These questions ensure that the correction is directed not only at the person but also at the working arrangement.

Make it easy for the people you work with to report mistakes. A person humiliated at every error may learn to hide the next one. This is a heavy loss both for training and for the safety of the file. Treat the legal and professional consequences of the mistake seriously; do not build an atmosphere of fear that silences the person.

Being able to criticize yourself does not weaken your professional authority. The need to appear right in every situation narrows your opportunity to learn. When you accept the justified criticism of a young colleague or a client, you contribute to the relationship of trust being built on a firmer basis.

Taking responsibility for a mistake also requires building an arrangement that does not allow it to be repeated.

Do not leave your health and your life outside the profession

The practice of law demands mental and emotional labor. A file can stay on your mind after you leave the office. Being aware of this, create opportunities for rest, for time with your loved ones and for continuing interests outside the profession. Appearing to work constantly does not always show that you are working well.

Özkent’s account of the exhausting nature of the profession is valuable for thinking about the importance of rest. On the other hand, we cannot relay as current scientific data the statements in the source text that certain illnesses are seen more in attorneys than in other professions. To talk about professional fatigue there is no need for unverified health claims. [K1, §911, p. 309]

When you are tired, do not enlarge the risk of error by denying it. It is possible to rearrange your workload, to ask for support and, when necessary, to turn to suitable professional help. Illness or temporary weakness does not mean professional worthlessness. Show the people you work with the same understanding you show yourself.

Passion does not require that a person’s whole life be surrendered to files. When your relationship with your family, your friends and yourself can be preserved, you can give longer-lasting labor to the profession. Before accepting each new job, assess whether you can properly fulfill your existing responsibilities.

Live the life outside the profession with care too

If you regard rest as a reward to be earned only when all the work is done, rest can be postponed indefinitely. Plan leave and breaks by building an arrangement that ensures the continuity of the work. Make room for movement, regular eating and rest suited to your personal needs. Do not let a professional success book’s giving everyone the same meal list or the same health statement take the place of a personal medical assessment.

Be able to talk about it when you have a problem. Let the thought “A strong attorney never complains” not keep you from asking for help, objecting to working conditions or seeking your rights. It is useful to notice if you only keep recounting the same problem and take no step; this does not remove the right to explain the problem. When necessary, use professional, social and suitable expert support.

At home and in relationships with friends, do not turn every conversation into an argument that must be won. Do not cross-examine a person who needs to be listened to. Be able to apologize, say thank you, create areas where you can rejoice together. Let your work as a jurist make it easier for you to understand life; let it not place a language of dispute in all your relationships.

Do good; do not calculate that its return will necessarily come back to you as income or fame. Contributing to a purpose wider than yourself outside the profession can be one of the ways of remembering who you are. Do not measure the value of social responsibility and solidarity by how many new people it brings you.

Let the labor you give to the profession not be the justification for the attention you constantly withhold from the people you live with.

Measure success correctly

If you measure success only by the cases won, you cannot see an important part of the practice of law. A correct legal assessment that does not require filing a lawsuit, a loss of rights that was prevented, a risk explained understandably, or work that enabled the client to make an informed decision also carries professional value.

In a file that ended in your favor, think about which contribution your work really made. In a file that ended against you, do not assume that all the labor was worthless. The lawful conduct of the process, the assessment of the claims that could be put forward and the honest informing of the client should be examined separately.

When evaluating your working arrangement, use concrete questions. Do you keep the promises you give to call back? Do you start time-limited work on time? Do you use unsourced claims? Do you follow up open work? Can the client understand the state of their file? Is the person working beside you really learning? Is the same mistake repeating?

Do not turn the answers to these questions into an advertising score or a success rate. Use them to improve yourself. Professional reputation is about the trust that daily work builds over time. Do not spend this trust for the sake of easy visibility.

It is natural to want economic success. But how the earnings were obtained, the nature of the labor expended and how another person’s rights were treated are also part of the assessment. Earnings obtained by drifting away from human and professional values cannot be the only measure of success held up as an example to a young colleague.

Let your humanity not shrink as your work grows.

Related articles: You can read the emphasis in this article on professional ethics and courage in defense together with historical precepts in the article The 1928 Istanbul Bar Association Diary: Attorney Professional Ethics and 50 Precepts, and with the example of criminal defense in the article The Anatomy of Criminal Defense Practice: The Art of Defense, Professional Psychology, Character and Ethical Stance.

Questions young colleagues often ask

Do I have to answer a client immediately every time they call?

It may not be possible to meet every call instantly; but you should build a call-back arrangement that attends to important and urgent matters and does not let unanswered applications be forgotten. The method and timing of communication suited to the nature of the work should be explained from the start, and the call-back promises given should be kept. A number cannot be used as if there were a single statutory response time valid for all files. For details, see the working arrangement in the section “Get back to your client and inform them”.

If there is no development in the file, should I still give information?

Reporting the result of a check made at suitable intervals supports the relationship of trust. Explain that there is no new action, what is being awaited and the next check. Assess this interval together with the urgency of the file and the communication arrangement determined with the client. Do not report a check you have not made as if it had been made.

Does empathizing with the client break professional distance?

No. Listening to the person attentively, understanding their anxiety and giving understandable information do not prevent you from maintaining the limits of fee, time, confidentiality and legal instruction. Empathy does not require you to regard every request of the client as justified or lawful.

Can an attorney who works alone institutionalize?

Yes. An arrangement of files, time limits, work follow-up, informing, accounts and a secure archive can be built in one-person practice too. The principle “Write what you did, do what you wrote, write again what you did” is the beginning of this arrangement. Institutionalization here does not mean that a separate company or law practice entity (avukatlık ortaklığı) has been established.

Are intelligence and strong oratory enough to be a good attorney?

They are not enough. These abilities must be combined with research, knowledge of the file, ethical judgment, listening, writing and the discipline of follow-up. When a sense of ability replaces preparation, unnoticed mistakes can arise.

If there is no written fee contract, does the right to a fee disappear altogether?

No. Articles 163 and 164 of the Attorneyship Law regulate these situations separately. Written form matters for clarity and proof; the scope of the specific relationship and the determination of the fee are examined separately. An old provision in a historical text should not be applied as the current general rule. [K2]

Does my getting tired even though I love the profession show that I chose the wrong profession?

Not by itself. Temporary fatigue, difficult working conditions and economic pressures should be distinguished from a lasting lack of interest in the profession. Assess your workload, support and way of working. On the other hand, if you do not want to form a bond with people, with the law and with the labor the profession requires, you may honestly consider turning to another field.

As a trainee, does saying that I do not know make me look inadequate?

Saying openly that you do not know a subject and determining how you will research it is responsible behavior. Continuing the same uncertainty without trying to learn is different from noticing your limit and asking for help. Ask questions, research, and record the result and what you have learned.

You will decide what kind of person you put inside the robe

My young colleagues,

When you start the profession, you cannot be expected to know all the answers. But your will to research what you do not know, your effort to keep the promise you give, and the care you show to people can be seen from the very first day. You choose how you will behave at a client’s phone call, in the final check of a petition or at a colleague’s question.

If you want to be a good attorney, work. If you want to be a good jurist, question the basis of your thinking. If you want to remain a good person, preserve the attention you give to another person’s life. These responsibilities will come before you together in the same file, in the same meeting and at the same moment of decision.

Practice your profession with passion. Be sure to get back to your client. Take the right to be informed seriously. Do not postpone preparation by leaning on your intelligence. Be open to relearning what you know. Write what you did, do what you wrote, then record again what you really did. Protect your legal word before authority and your professional standards before earnings.

One day, when a trainee comes to you, show them the attention you expect for yourself today. Allow them to ask questions, to think and, when necessary, to disagree with you. The future of the profession will be formed not only from what you tell them but also from what they see while working with you.

One of the precious things that can be left behind is a person who has grown stronger because you gave them information; another is a colleague who has learned to work and to take responsibility. Evaluate your professional life by this measure as well.

Your robe gives you a duty. How that duty is fulfilled is shown by your behavior every day.

Sources and reading notes

K1. Ali Haydar Özkent, “Final Chapter: Confidential Conversations with Young Attorneys” (“Son Fasıl: Genç Avukatlarla Gizli Konuşmalar”), Ankara Bar Association Journal (Ankara Barosu Dergisi), 2011/3, pp. 299–312, §900–911. According to the journal’s note, the section is taken from the author’s work The Attorney’s Book (Avukatın Kitabı). Journal record and full text. Historical assessments have not been treated as current rules of law.

K2. Attorneyship Law No. 1136 (Avukatlık Kanunu); in particular Arts. 1, 11–12, 34, 36, 52, 55, 163–164. Union of Turkish Bar Associations legislation page; for the text of the relevant articles in this work, the Zonguldak Bar Association publication was consulted.

K3. Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098, in particular Arts. 506 and 508. Grand National Assembly of Türkiye adoption text. This link shows the initial adopted text of the law; it is not presented as the current consolidated version of the entire law. The study in K6 was also taken into account in assessing the relevant obligations.

K4. Professional Rules of the Union of Turkish Bar Associations (Türkiye Barolar Birliği Meslek Kuralları); in particular Arts. 2–6, 17, 33, 33/A, 34, 37–38 and 46. TBB legislation page; bar association publication in which the relevant provisions were examined. Old provisions carrying a note of annulment or amendment have not been used as generally valid rules.

K5. United Nations, Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, 1990; in particular principles 13–18 and 22. Text at the University of Minnesota Human Rights Library. The document has been used as an international professional standard.

K6. Emre Cumalıoğlu, Yasemin Kalkancı and Sena Öbek, “A Critique of the Court of Cassation Decisions on the Attorney’s Right of Retention” (“Avukatın Hapis Hakkına İlişkin Yargıtay Kararlarının Eleştirisi”), TBB Journal (TBB Dergisi), 2024, issue 175, pp. 303–358; for this article, in particular p. 307, where the attorney’s duties of disclosure, loyalty, information and accounting are discussed. Full text. The disputed views on the right of retention in the study have not been turned into a definite rule of law in this article.

K7. Plato, Apology of Socrates (Sokrates’in Savunması), in particular the discussion around 21d; Benjamin Jowett’s English translation, MIT Internet Classics Archive. The application of Socratic questioning to the learning of the practice of law is this article’s interpretation. No free Turkish-language maxim attributed to Socrates has been used in the text.

K8. Union of Turkish Bar Associations Regulation on the Prohibition of Advertising (Türkiye Barolar Birliği Reklam Yasağı Yönetmeliği); in particular Arts. 7 and 11. The text published by the TBB was examined together with the amendments of August 9, 2024 and the Article 12/A supplement dated May 2, 2026. The educational purpose of the article does not mean that every publication or distribution method is automatically appropriate.

K9. Tarkan Karabel, You Too Can Be a Successful Attorney: Business Development Methods in the Practice of Law in All Their Aspects (Siz de Başarılı Bir Avukat Olabilirsiniz: Tüm Yönleriyle Avukatlıkta İş Geliştirme Yöntemleri), the 126-page e-book provided. The copyright page is 2020 and the date of the preface is February 2011; for this reason a single new edition date has not been assumed. In particular pp. 10–25 (professional direction and service), pp. 26–52 (communication and relationships), pp. 53–67 (digital publishing and press), pp. 68–103 (client relationships), pp. 104–124 (management, learning and work discipline). The whole work was read; advertising, manipulation, discriminatory patterns and unverified numbers or stories have not been adopted as professional rules. Words it attributes to other authors have not been quoted without verifying the original sources.

K10. What Do Clients Want? (Müvekkiller ne ister?), the 26-page compilation of articles provided. The texts carry dates appearing in the range 2017–2022; the compilation bears Tarkan Karabel’s signature. The title of the first article is the same as the file name; the compilation also covers strategy, joint practice, process management, educational leadership, time management, performance, procrastination and work–life balance. The text and the relevant diagrams of the PDF were examined; the different pieces of advice in each article were taken into assessment. Period-specific dates, statistics, health statements and marketing suggestions found in the source have not been regarded as current general rules.

K11. Google Search Central, Creating helpful, reliable, people-first content. It has been used only in assessing the approach of content that is useful to the reader, reliable and fit for purpose, and the mistaken assumption concerning a particular word count. No search visibility or ranking guarantee is given.

This article is intended for professional training and for sharing thought. It is not a substitute for a file-specific assessment of time limits, routes of application, a fee dispute or liability. The date on which the sources were reviewed is October 9, 2026.