The Ottoman Empire, within the constraints of its own circumstances, made reasonable efforts to modernize the profession of “legal representative for the case” (“dava vekilliği”) existing under the term “attorneyship for being party in the case/hearing” (“husumete/murafaaya vekalet”) in Islamic Law. In this regard, the Regulation on Legal Representatives for the Case of Regulatory (“Nizamiye”) Courts (“Mehakim-i Nizamiye Dava Vekilleri Hakkında Nizamname”) dated 1875, is the first regulatory framework related to the legal profession. It holds the status of being the foundational regulation for the profession of advocacy in the Turkish legal system.

When the Turkish Republic era was reached, the prevailing view was that the legal institution of legal representative for the case was inadequate, and there was a need to create a new professional branch. In this context, within the ongoing judicial reform efforts, the aim was to establish a transitional period with Attorney’s Act numbered 460 (“Muhamat Kanunu”) until a more comprehensive law was enacted.

Attorney’s Act consisted of a temporary total of 18 articles, led to the emergence of decisions in the post-war period with a predominant political aspect through the commissions (“tasfiye komisyonları/meclis-i tefrik”) established under this act as well as it facilitated the establishment of a new profession known as attorneyship (“muhamilik”), defined the rights, powers, and duties of this profession, specified the conditions for acceptance and transition into this profession, ensured the formation of a new professional organization under the name of the bar association, and introduced principles that still hold validity today such as activities incompatible with attorneyship or the prohibition of participation in a lawsuit.

The consensus that has been present since the Ottoman period on the fundamental solutions outlined in the Attorney’s Act has led to debates in the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye focusing more on secondary issues. These issues include (i) the duration and form of the internship required to be eligible for the profession of attorneyship, (ii) whether graduation from a law school is a prerequisite for practicing as an attorney, and (iii) whether the terms “muhami” and “muhamat” deriving from the Arabic word “himaye”, “mahmi” and meaning that “protector”, are suitable for the newly established profession. 

In today’s context, the first two of these three discussed issues still retain their significance. Specifically, the 36-month internship system, originally envisaged as a civil servant within the judiciary and financed by the state according to the Attorney’s Act, has now transformed into a 12-month internship with an uncertain work structure, funded by the candidate themselves. When the current internship approach falls short of meeting the average characteristics of practices in other countries compared to the internship system outlined in the Attorney’s Act, it is observed that there has been a regression in terms of the duration and financial burden of the internship, limited progress regarding the choice of internship placements, and an ongoing expectation for the implementation of the bar exam. Therefore, it should be emphasized that a thorough review of the internship provisions in the regulations for lawyering would be highly beneficial.  

On the other hand, although it was not considered a reputable view during the Attorney’s Act discussions in the parliament, it is seen that two years after the Act’s enactment, graduates of the school of political sciences were allowed to practice as a lawyer by taking additional courses and completing exams. This practice continued for over 40 years. While investigating the rationale behind this, it is noted according to some approximate data that in the 1920s, only 20-30 people graduated from law faculties each year; considering that Ankara Law School produced its first graduates in 1928, a significant change in this number until the 1930s seems unlikely; in 1939, there were a total of 1,631 lawyers in Türkiye; from the 1960s to the late 1970s, the two law faculties in Türkiye produced a total of 950 graduates each year; in 1961- 1962, that the ratio of lawyers in Türkiye to the population was deemed sufficient pursuant to the research conducted by the State Planning Organization. Therefore, it can be inferred that the opportunity for political sciences graduates to practice law was provided until the gap in the legal professional workforce was filled; in other words, until the days when the ratio of lawyers to real persons in Türkiye decreased from one lawyer for every 10,000 individuals to one lawyer for every 2,485 individuals. However, today, by the ratio of lawyers to real persons, which is 459, in Türkiye, the question of whether graduates from other fields should practice law has evolved into the question of “Is there a need for so many legal professionals/lawyers?”