Good legal representation begins with understanding what the client wants to protect. An attorney’s knowledge should serve the protection of rights, the explanation of options, and the client’s ability to make decisions whose consequences the client can understand. This is the basic lesson that can be drawn from Julie Macfarlane’s “new lawyer” approach: legal expertise should become a way of working that touches a person’s life or the real needs of a business.
The collection of a receivable may matter as much as keeping a business running; a divorce claim may involve safety, the child’s daily routine and economic uncertainty as well. The legal name of a claim may not explain all of a person’s needs. This article evaluates Macfarlane’s work and its complementary explanations through that relationship; it treats the views in the book and professional recommendations for Türkiye separately.
The Core Idea of Julie Macfarlane’s The New Lawyer
The focus of change from the first edition to the second
The New Lawyer: How Clients Are Transforming the Practice of Law is the title of the second edition, published by UBC Press in 2017. An explanatory Turkish rendering of the title would be (“Yeni Avukat: Müvekkiller Avukatlık Uygulamasını Nasıl Dönüştürüyor”); this is not the title of an official Turkish edition. [1]
In the piece introducing the second edition, the author explains an important shift in direction. The emphasis of the first edition in 2008 is how resolving disputes by agreement changed legal practice. In the second edition, the client’s wish for more explanation, participation and a say in costs comes to the fore. The source of the transformation is now also sought in the changing expectations of the person receiving the service. [3]
Reading this approach merely as advice on kinder communication falls short. The real question is who sets the goals in a file, how alternatives are discussed, and how a professional decision is explained to the client. The client’s ability to ask questions is an element that changes how legal service is organized.
Listening and accessibility in the foreword
The authors of the foreword, Kari Boyle and Jennifer Muller, emphasize listening, empathy, patience and shared decisions in the evolving attorney–client relationship. They link understanding the client’s needs and goals to evaluating the appropriate legal path. These views belong to the authors of the foreword. [1, foreword, pp. xi–xiii]
This emphasis affects what we pay attention to in the first meeting. Listening to the client’s account only to find the cause of action can lead us to understand incompletely why the person sought help. When making the legal characterization, we should also learn the burden the person carries, the conditions under which the person can make decisions, and the values the person wants protected.
Professional habits are also a subject of examination
The book’s chapter structure connects professional identity, the basic assumptions of lawyers, negotiation, advocacy, the client relationship, the role of law, ethics and the sources of change. [1] Macfarlane’s academic article likewise discusses assumptions such as giving priority to a rights-based method, equating justice with procedure, and the attorney’s decisive position in the decision-making relationship. [4]
The useful question here is this: Does the method chosen for the file really arise from the characteristics of that dispute, or is it an automatic repetition of a customary way of working? Asking this question does not belittle legal knowledge; it checks the purpose for which knowledge is used.
The Four Basic Areas of the Attorney–Client Relationship
In the excerpts published from the sixth chapter, Macfarlane identifies four areas of the new working relationship: planning and decisions; costs and the financial structure of the service; the client’s participation in settlement discussions; and the personal and emotional dimension of the relationship. [2, p. 143] These are addressed below from the standpoint of practice.
“The historical assumption that attorneys must ‘take care of’ their clients should be replaced by an open, functioning collaboration in which there is full transparency and shared decision-making.”
Julie Macfarlane, p. 20; Turkish translation. The collaboration here refers to a relationship of working together. [2]
Strategy should be built by learning the client’s goals
When a company wants to collect a receivable, its priority may be quick cash flow, enforcement of the contract, or continuation of the commercial relationship. These aims may carry different weights in the same file. The attorney should learn these preferences together with the legal basis of the claim.
A short goal record can be kept at the start of the file: the outcome sought, the unacceptable risk, missing information and the time for reassessment. A new document, an unexpected expense or a development in the family arrangement may change priorities. The record is used not to freeze the first preference but to be able to trace the reason for a change.
The discussion of shared decision-making in Macfarlane’s academic article makes one think about the limits of pointing to a single path and asking for approval. [4, section X] Professional advice should explain the recommended option, its alternative, the assumption on which it rests, and the developments in which it may change. The attorney may openly recommend the path the attorney considers stronger. The client’s participation does not require withholding professional opinion.
The measure of real participation is that the client can understand among which options, and at the risk of which consequences, the client is deciding. Some people may want to discuss in detail, others to receive summary information at certain stages. The form of briefing can be adapted to the person; the explanation necessary for the decision must be preserved.
Fees and the scope of work should be explained clearly
The client’s budget should not be treated as a problem that emerges at the end of the file. The attorney’s fee, expenses to be paid to third parties or institutions, and work whose scope is not yet settled should be distinguished at the outset. If an expert, translation or a different proceeding becomes necessary, it should be possible to understand which work falls within the current scope.
“The new lawyer should anticipate that clients will expect transparency about likely costs and should be kept regularly informed.”
Julie Macfarlane, excerpts published from chapter 6, pp. 146–149; Turkish translation. [2]
It may not be possible to fix every expense at the outset. Even so, it can be explained on what assumption an estimate rests, in what development it will change, and how additional work will be discussed. Cost information should be presented together with the purpose of the proposed step.
In the account of a custody dispute reported in the book under the pseudonym “Martha,” an initial payment of $5,000 is followed within six weeks by an additional invoice of $24,000; the person later goes without an attorney because she cannot sustain the cost of representation. This is a historical account reported by the author; it is not data about fees in Türkiye, and on its own it cannot be treated as a finding of professional fault. [2] The example suggests that not only starting the service but also being able to sustain it must be planned.
The client’s participation in negotiation requires preparation
The client’s participation matters for setting priorities, assessing whether an offer is workable in real life, and explaining which condition is acceptable. It does not mean attending every meeting in person.
Before a meeting, the attorney should discuss with the client the topics to be addressed, the information to be shared, the points requiring a decision, and the likely consequences of the offer. When an offer is assessed, the payment date, the security for performance, the continuation of the relationship and the clarity of the obligations may be examined alongside the amount. An offer unsuited to the file is not accepted merely because a meeting took place.
Empathy should deepen the legal assessment
Listening does not mean treating every allegation as verified. It helps distinguish the sequence of events, what the person knows directly and the conclusions the person draws, and the matters that are important to the person. The repetition of the same event may point to a wrongly recorded date, an unclear explanation or a need the person feels has not been heard.
The interview with Macfarlane on the university page values seeing the family and commercial context of the dispute; it does not equate this with the attorney taking on the task of another profession. [5] Working with a financial expert, a mental health professional or a specialist who will assess the child’s needs, where necessary, should be considered while preserving the attorney’s own field of duty.
Empathy is valuable not for suspending legal reasoning but for reaching the right facts and the real need. Understanding the client’s distress does not mean approving an expectation that has no legal basis. A difficult assessment can also be delivered respectfully and openly.
Strong Advocacy and the Search for a Solution Go Together
Negotiation requires command of the file
Macfarlane’s approach, which can be described as “advocacy that has regard to dispute resolution,” rests on using legal expertise together with negotiation and solution-development skills. In the author’s explanations, the possible necessity of adversarial methods is preserved. [5]
The quality of a proposal cannot be assessed without examining the strength of the evidence, the legal basis, the other party’s likely response, and the path to be taken if no agreement is reached. Understanding the other party’s concern may show which proposal is workable. This understanding does not require giving up one’s own client’s rights without justification.
The timing of a solution and the protection of rights are assessed together
Two questions should be asked together in a file: What step is necessary now to protect rights, and what information must be completed before an acceptable solution can be reached? While discussions continue, application time limits, the preservation of evidence and the necessary interim legal protection measures must be monitored separately. The effect of the chosen method on time limits is determined according to the relevant provisions.
An early offer can be problematic if it does not rest on sufficient information. A document obtained later may allow a more informed discussion. A strong strategy is one that can be reassessed as the file’s level of information changes. The value of an agreement is also not limited to its signing; what matters is that it can actually be performed.
Limited-Scope Service and Access to Justice
The scope of the service and the authority to represent should be kept apart
The limited-scope retainer mentioned in the book describes a service relationship in which legal service is confined to specific tasks or stages. Calling it only a “limited-scope power of attorney” (sınırlı kapsamlı vekâletname) in Turkish may confuse the service contract with the document showing authority to represent. Unbundled legal services is used in the sense of services being offered separately for specific tasks; legal coaching in the sense of a person receiving guidance from an attorney on certain tasks in a process the person conducts alone. [2]
Needs such as reviewing documents, answering a particular question or preparing for a hearing are examples of foreign practice described in the book. They cannot be accepted as service models that apply automatically in Türkiye. The nature of the work, representation, fees and professional liability rules must be assessed separately.
Risks should be visible in narrow-scope work too
Macfarlane also reports concerns that, in such services, the attorney cannot see the whole file and the client misunderstands the limits of the tasks. [2] The lesson that can be drawn for practice is that the work undertaken, the steps left outside the scope and their possible effects should be clear.
When the scope of service is set, how the parts of the file affect one another should not be overlooked. Drafting one document may depend on another application, on the submission of evidence or on a time limit. That a client wants to handle more of the work personally does not by itself show that the client knows these links.
Independence and Duties of Protection under Turkish Law
Working together does not remove professional responsibility
Article 1 of the Attorneyship Law (Avukatlık Kanunu) regulates independent advocacy, Article 2 the resolution of legal matters with justice and equity, and Article 34 professional care and accuracy. Thinking together with the client should be addressed together with these duties. [7]
Article 35/A of the same Law provides, before a lawsuit is filed or after it has been filed but before the hearing has begun, the possibility of an invitation to reach agreement on matters in which the parties can obtain the claimed outcome by their own will. This special provision is not the same institution as negotiations in general or mediation. For acts such as settlement, the special authority requirement in Article 74 of the Code of Civil Procedure (HMK) is also taken into account. [[7, 8]](#kaynak-7)
In family disputes, safety and the child’s situation come first
In divorce and family disputes, understanding the parties’ needs requires seeing safety, economic conditions and the child’s daily life together. Openness in communication does not justify a person making a decision under pressure or the downplaying of a risk.
Article 1/2 of Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes defines the scope with respect to private-law disputes over which the parties can freely dispose; it does not treat disputes involving an allegation of domestic violence as suitable for mediation. [9] Under Article 166(3) of the Turkish Civil Code (TMK), in an uncontested divorce too, the parties’ agreement alone is not sufficient; the judge must be satisfied of free will and find appropriate the arrangement regarding the financial consequences and the situation of the children. [10]
The nature of the search for a solution should be evaluated together with the extent to which it takes into account the safety and rights of the person who needs protection. The idea of collaboration in the book cannot be turned into a formula that recommends the same method for all family disputes.
What the Approach Looks Like in a Representative Commercial Dispute
Consider the following example, which is not based on a real client file: A business wants to terminate its contract with a supplier because of a delivery and payment dispute and to claim its losses. In the meeting, it becomes clear that the most urgent need is that production not be interrupted.
The attorney first examines the contract, the correspondence, the delivery records and the rights that can be claimed. The attorney then assesses the legal consequences of options such as a delivery schedule, security, an interim arrangement or a controlled ending of the relationship. In this way, the claim stated at the outset and the business’s priority are addressed together.
If the other party does not provide reliable information or makes a commitment it cannot fulfil, the strategy may change. Exploring the possibility of discussion does not mean postponing necessary legal protection. The instructive side of the example, for instance, is not that it recommends a predetermined outcome but that the path chosen is justified by the client’s need and the facts of the file.
How the Book’s Approach Can Be Reflected in Daily Work
The table below is an assessment tool prepared for this article; it is not a classification taken from the book. It may help conduct the client meeting and the strategy assessment through concrete questions.
| Topic to assess | Question to answer in the file |
|---|---|
| Goal and legal basis | What does the client want to protect, and which facts and rules support it? |
| Missing information | Which document or explanation that could change the decision is not yet available? |
| Time and cost | What is the foreseeable expense and waiting burden of each path? |
| Workability | How will the decision or agreement actually be performed? |
| Safety and free will | Can the person decide without being under pressure? |
| Reassessment | In which development will the current strategy be reviewed? |
The briefing routine can also be tied to these questions. The arrival of new evidence, a change in the offer, the emergence of a significant expense, or a court decision that affects the course of the proceedings can be set as turning points requiring a renewed explanation. That a message has been sent is not the same as its content having been understood; on a matter requiring a decision, how the client has understood the explanation should also be seen.
The Book Should Be Read Critically
The limits of generalizations about professional culture
In his academic review of the first edition, Andrew Pirie finds valuable the joint assessment of litigation advocacy and settlement skills. However, he states that he is not sure about the generalization that most attorneys equate justice with formal procedure. [6] This objection preserves the strong questions of the work while avoiding a firm verdict about the profession as a whole.
The predominant context of the work is North America. The book’s data on litigation, settlement and unrepresented parties cannot be used as if they were statistics from Türkiye. Assessments dated 2008 and 2017 also do not replace current research covering all of today’s technologies.
The cost of time and power imbalance should also be taken into account
An attorney assessing a settlement discussion should examine the parties’ access to information, their economic capacity to hold out and the effect of delay. A person who wants a quick result may be making that choice freely; the person may also be left among narrowed options because the person cannot finance a long process. This difference affects the reasoning of the advice.
The professional conclusion that can be drawn here is not to attribute all delays to the attorney’s communication. The structure of the proceedings and the other party’s conduct must also be assessed separately. On the other hand, it is possible for the attorney to explain, in the area the attorney can control, why time was spent, the purpose of the work done and the next step.
The Quality of the Future Attorney Shows in the Way of Working
The professional profile Macfarlane sketches in the afterword brings together problem-solving, strategic thinking, communication and prepared negotiation skills. It is possible to make this framework concrete with the following criteria for the way of working. [2, pp. 239–240]
Attentive listening requires relating the account to documents and the sequence of events. Strategic thinking means assessing each step’s contribution to the aim and its alternative. Clarity requires distinguishing what is known from what is not yet known, and a legal opinion from the uncertainty of the outcome. Professional courage is being able to tell the client the legal reality the client may not wish to hear while continuing the necessary struggle.
The implication for legal education and professional development is concrete too: alongside legal research and pleading skills, skills in conducting interviews, forming understandable advice, preparing for negotiation and discussing costs should also be developed. Not every attorney needs to have the same personality; each needs to be able to explain the nature of the work done and adapt the method to the file.
In Conclusion, Legal Knowledge Should Become the Client’s Informed Decision
In the afterword, Macfarlane uses the following complete sentence:
“No one process of dispute resolution is appropriate for all conflicts.”
“No dispute resolution method is appropriate for all disputes.”
Julie Macfarlane, excerpts published from the afterword, pp. 239–240; the second sentence is a Turkish translation. [2]
This approach calls on the attorney to justify the method chosen in each file. Where necessary, a lawsuit should be filed and the defense pursued with determination. Where conditions are suitable, negotiation should be conducted, and the offer examined together with the legal rights and the likelihood that it will be performed. At every stage the client’s goal should be seen anew, new information should be able to change the earlier opinion, and the consequences of the decision should be understandable.
When the file ends, the client may hold a decision or an agreement. It is also valuable for the client to know which options were weighed to reach that result, why a particular risk was taken, and how the matters important to the client were taken into account. The real strength of the new approach to legal practice is that it turns legal knowledge into a way of working in which the client can understand, participate and protect his or her rights.
Related articles: The Limits of Trust in the Attorney–Client Relationship: Loyalty, Independence and Professional Ethics, The Attorney’s Duty to Inform the Client: File Follow-Up, Communication and Accountability and The Psychology of the Attorney–Client Relationship: Transference, Countertransference and Professional Boundaries address the same relationship from the perspectives of ethics, briefing and communication; for the firm’s working principles, see Fighting for the Sake of the Law: Güneş & Güneş’s Approach to Legal Practice.
Sources and legal bases
- Julie Macfarlane, The New Lawyer: How Clients Are Transforming the Practice of Law, 2nd ed., UBC Press, 2017. Foreword: Kari Boyle and Jennifer Muller, pp. xi–xiii. Publisher record. Free sample chapter. The sample file is not the whole book.
- Julie Macfarlane, excerpts from chapters 1 and 6 and the afterword of the book, published with the publisher’s permission, Slaw, August 31, 2017; pp. 18–20, 143, 146–149, 239–240. Permitted excerpts. The quotations in Turkish are translations; they are not taken from an official Turkish edition.
- Julie Macfarlane, “The Newer Lawyer and the Client Revolution,” post dated August 8, 2017; the current page also shows the date June 30, 2021. The author’s explanation of the second edition.
- Julie Macfarlane, “The Evolution of the New Lawyer: How Lawyers are Reshaping the Practice of Law,” Journal of Dispute Resolution, 2008, issue 1, article 6; especially sections III, IX–X and XII. Academic article.
- University of Windsor, “About the Book”: the author’s explanations and Michellyne Mancini’s Windsor Law Now interview; first-edition period. Writings and interview.
- Andrew Pirie, “Book Review: The New Lawyer: How Settlement is Transforming the Practice of Law, by Julie Macfarlane,” Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 46(1), 2008, pp. 203–210. DOI: 10.60082/2817-5069.1214. Academic review.
- Attorneyship Law No. 1136 (Avukatlık Kanunu), Articles 1, 2, 34 and 35/A. Union of Turkish Bar Associations (Türkiye Barolar Birliği) legislation text.
- Law No. 6100 on Civil Procedure (Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu), Article 74. Ministry of Justice (Adalet Bakanlığı) legislation record.
- Law No. 6325 on Mediation in Civil Disputes (Hukuk Uyuşmazlıklarında Arabuluculuk Kanunu), Article 1/2. Ministry of Justice legislation text.
- Turkish Civil Code No. 4721 (Türk Medeni Kanunu), Article 166/3. Ministry of Justice legislation record.
Source check and text revision: October 9, 2026. This article is a review of a professional approach and an academic work; the characteristics of the file must be assessed separately for a specific dispute.