{"id":3488,"date":"2025-07-08T14:24:00","date_gmt":"2025-07-08T11:24:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/nazali.av.tr\/?p=3488"},"modified":"2026-06-01T11:24:57","modified_gmt":"2026-06-01T08:24:57","slug":"the-lawyers-advertising-ban-caught-between-ethics-and-the-market-where-does-it-begin-and-where-does-it-end","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nazali.av.tr\/en\/the-lawyers-advertising-ban-caught-between-ethics-and-the-market-where-does-it-begin-and-where-does-it-end\/","title":{"rendered":"THE LAWYER’S ADVERTISING BAN CAUGHT BETWEEN ETHICS AND THE MARKET: WHERE DOES IT BEGIN AND WHERE DOES IT END?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
Burak YILMAZ<\/strong>
Lawyer<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

\ufeff<\/p>\n\n\n\n

ABSTRACT<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This article analyses the regulations governing lawyers’ advertising and promotional activities in Turkish law within the context of their historical development and contemporary digital challenges. Drawing on the tension between the legal profession’s conception as an “honourable profession” and commercial activity, the study examines the philosophical foundations of the restrictions imposed by the Attorneys’ Act No. 1136 and the Turkish Bar Association Professional Rules, namely professional dignity, independence, and client protection. Particularly in light of disciplinary decisions, the grey area between “information” and “advertising” created by social media is evaluated, and the distinction between permitted and prohibited content on platforms such as Instagram and YouTube is delineated. A comparative law analysis demonstrates that Turkey is in a transition process from a strict prohibition model to a “controlled freedom” model akin to that of Europe, although this transition is proceeding cautiously due to cultural conservatism and supervisory difficulties. In conclusion, it is emphasised that the dynamics of digitalisation, competition law, and the right to information render greater flexibility in legislation inevitable; and that the future focus should be on developing ethical and transparent communication standards rather than prohibition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Keywords: <\/strong>Advertising Ban, Legal Profession, Attorneys’ Act, Professional Rules, Liberal Profession, Professional Dignity, Public Service, Freedom of Competition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

INTRODUCTION<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The legal profession, by virtue of its historical roots, has been recognised as an integral component of the justice mechanism and a guarantee of the rule of law. In this capacity, the profession has been regarded as an “honourable profession” (liberal profession) encompassing not merely a service provision but also a public mission. However, in an increasingly globalised world, the influence of free market dynamics on the legal sector, as in all service industries, has given rise to a fundamental tension concerning the nature of the legal profession: Is lawyering a public service or a commercial activity? This dilemma shapes the underlying philosophy of numerous rules governing the regulation of the profession, particularly those imposing restrictions on promotional and marketing activities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Turkish law, the “advertising ban” regulated by the Attorneys’ Act and the Turkish Bar Association Professional Rules constitutes a concrete manifestation of this traditional understanding. The rule aims to prevent the commodification of the profession, unfair competition, and the misleading of clients, asserting its intention to strike a balance between professional dignity and independence on the one hand, and the public interest on the other. Traditionally, lawyer advertising has been regarded as a serious ethical misconduct and behaviour undermining trust. Underpinning this understanding is the notion that legal assistance is not a commodity but a special relationship based on trust; and that the lawyer, rather than being a neutral legal consultant, is a public official (sui generis) contributing to the administration of justice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, the age of digital communication is profoundly disrupting this entrenched professional paradigm. The internet, social media platforms, blogs, and digital marketing tools have radically transformed modes of access to information and self-expression. Lawyers now have the opportunity to reach broad virtual audiences beyond the walls of their offices. In this context, commenting on legal developments through social media accounts, analysing publicly available court decisions, or sharing informative content regarding legislative changes has become an increasingly common professional practice. It is at this juncture that an inevitable tension arises between the traditional understanding of the “advertising ban” and the “freedom of information” afforded by the digital world. Lawyers exercising their professional activities on a platform based on free competition cannot entirely renounce competition. Where does an infographic, an analysed Court of Cassation decision, or a narrated case process end, and where does impermissible promotion begin? This question is being vigorously debated by bar associations, ethics committees, and academics not only in Turkey but in many legal systems worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The purpose of this article is to conduct a multidimensional analysis of the lawyer advertising ban in Turkish law within the context of this historical-philosophical foundation and contemporary digital challenges. The scope of the study comprises setting forth the existing legal framework (statute, regulation, and professional rules), examining the public interest and ethical justifications underlying the prohibition, delineating the boundaries between permitted and prohibited conduct, and scrutinising grey areas, particularly social media usage. Furthermore, by adopting a comparative law perspective, different regulatory models in the United States and various European countries will be addressed, and Turkey’s position within this spectrum will be discussed. The ultimate objective is to explore the possibilities of a balanced and applicable ethical framework that preserves the dignity of the profession while accommodating the necessities of the digital age, situated between a rigid prohibitory approach and unlimited freedom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I. LEGISLATION AND HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT IN TURKISH LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Turkish law, lawyers’ promotional and advertising activities have evolved from a strict prohibition approach towards an area of controlled freedom with increasingly defined boundaries. This transformation can be traced not only through fundamental statutory regulations but also through changes in the profession’s own internal by-laws and regulations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Article 55 of the Attorneys’ Act No. 1136 establishes the highest-level legal framework on the subject. The provision reads: “It is prohibited for lawyers to engage in any kind of initiative and conduct that may be considered advertising for the purpose of obtaining work, and in particular to use any title other than the title of attorney and academic titles on their signboards and printed materials.” This provision modernises and expresses the traditional principles of “prohibition on soliciting clients” and “not commodifying the profession”. The legislature has hereby identified three fundamental areas of protection: (1) Professional Dignity: preserving the prestige of the attorney status in the eyes of the public; (2) Principle of Trust: not exploiting the trust that constitutes the essence of the client-lawyer relationship; (3) Professional Independence: preventing the lawyer from losing their impartiality and legal foresight due to advertising concerns or market pressures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The provision has left the concrete regulation and the scope of permitted informational activities directly to the Turkish Bar Association Professional Rules, thereby granting the professional organisation a flexible and updatable regulatory authority. The Turkish Bar Association Attorney Professional Rules constitute the most detailed and directly applicable text delineating the boundaries of lawyers’ promotional activities. The relevant provisions are as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Article 7 (Dignity and Prestige of the Profession): “The lawyer must meticulously refrain from all kinds of unnecessary conduct aimed solely at gaining fame.” This provision sets forth the general principle upon which all promotional activities are built.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Article 7 continued (Promotion and Information): This provision enumerates specific permitted areas: The lawyer may announce, through written, audio, visual communication channels and all kinds of online media, the opening of their office and their return to the profession after an interruption exceeding six months; their entry into and exit from an attorney partnership, in a manner not bearing advertising character. The lawyer’s letterheads, all kinds of business cards, other printed and electronic documents, and signboards must not be excessive so as to bear advertising character. The lawyer may not have more than one office; they must ensure that the office does not serve as an advertising tool and does not create the impression of permanent and continuous collaboration with other lawyers, law offices, and attorney partnerships.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The “Turkish Bar Association Regulation on Lawyers’ Promotion and Communication Activities”, prepared to meet the necessities of the digital age and repealing the former 1998-dated “Advertising Regulation”, entered into force at the beginning of 2024. This Regulation concretises the principles in the professional rules and introduces explanatory provisions particularly concerning the digital sphere. The Regulation has abandoned the negatively connoted word “advertising” and adopted a more inclusive term expressing the accurate and ethical transmission of professional identity to the public. The use of websites, blogs, social media profiles, podcasts, and video content platforms has been brought within the legal framework. It is emphasised that analyses or commentaries must be “informative”, “objective”, and of a nature “not leading to legal misinformation”. Exaggerated headlines of a “clickbait” nature are prohibited. It is stated that general question-and-answer sessions on social media may be for informational purposes, but providing individual legal opinions or advice concerning a concrete case is restricted (as it may create a de facto representation relationship). On all communication channels, the lawyer’s name, surname, and affiliated bar association must be clearly visible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

II. THE BALANCE ACHIEVED TODAY<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The regulation of promotional activities of the legal profession in Turkey has generally passed through three phases:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Period of Strict Prohibition (Traditional Approach – until the 1990s):<\/strong> The legal profession was regarded entirely as a public service, purified from all commercial concerns. Any kind of advertising and promotion was deemed contrary to professional dignity. Soliciting clients, going door-to-door, or placing advertisements in newspapers was absolutely prohibited and subject to severe professional disciplinary sanctions.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. Transition to Controlled Freedom and Initial Regulation (1998-2020s):<\/strong> Globalisation, the increasing number of lawyers, the emergence of large law firms, and ultimately the proliferation of the internet demonstrated that the traditional prohibition was unsustainable. The first “Advertising Regulation” that entered into force in 1998 was considered revolutionary. This Regulation permitted lawyers to promote themselves within certain rules. Concepts such as websites and indicating areas of specialisation appeared for the first time in this text. However, the negative tone of the word “advertising” and conservative interpretations in practice confined the freedom to a rather narrow area.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. Pressure of the Digital Age and Modern Adaptation Period (2020s – Present):<\/strong> The centrality of social media in life and, in particular, the younger generation of lawyers perceiving digital communication as a natural professional tool rendered existing rules inadequate and uncertain. The Turkish Bar Association undertook a comprehensive revision with the aim of preserving professional ethics on the one hand and enabling lawyers to keep pace with the times on the other. The 2024 Regulation is the product of this need. Henceforth, the focal point is not a rigid prohibition but “ethical communication” and “accurate information”.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Consequently, the Turkish legal system has evolved towards a “controlled and transparent communication model” that regulates lawyers’ promotional activities within a supervisory mechanism protecting the public interest and professional dignity, while also accepting the communication possibilities of the digital age. The current situation is founded neither on complete freedom nor on absolute prohibition; it is a dynamic balance wherein the fine line between information and commercial advertising is attempted to be drawn and supervised by the professional organisation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    III. PROHIBITED CONDUCT IN PRACTICE AND SOCIAL MEDIA<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The general principles drawn in legislation are shaped in practice through concrete actions and disciplinary decisions. While prohibited activities differ according to traditional and digital media, the underlying rationale remains the same: content that is misleading, exaggerated, comparative, and damaging to professional dignity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Prohibitions in Traditional Media<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Signboards and Office Signs: Expressions such as “Best Lawyer”, “Definite Solution”, “Guaranteed Divorce” are prohibited. The signboard may only contain the name, surname, bar registration number, and the expression “Attorney\/Law Office”. The Regulation has even determined the dimensions of the signboard. Accordingly, the signboard must not exceed “70 cm x 100 cm”. However, for signboards belonging to multiple lawyers or attorney partnerships, and signboards to be used on upper floors, this dimension may be increased up to “100 cm x 150 cm”. Where the attorneyship of a single person is concerned, it is not possible to use the expression “Law Office” on their signboard. Furthermore, Article 44 of the Attorneys’ Act must be cited at this point. Where one or several of the lawyers working together use their name and\/or surname, the expression “Attorney Office” must be used mandatorily. The Council of State has decided in this regard that only the expression “Attorney Office” should be used, not “Law Office”. This is because such qualification may cause clients to think they are facing a kind of company.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Business Cards and Printed Documents: Client references, success percentages, exaggerated emphasis on awards, or the use of logos\/slogans implying superiority over colleagues are not permitted. Areas of specialisation may be indicated with general headings (Labour Law, Criminal Law, etc.).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Risk Areas in Digital Media<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The digital world has rendered the distinction between “information” and “advertising” more ambiguous. The TBA’s 2024 Regulation attempts to shape this distinction. The following content and conduct carry the risk of disciplinary investigation:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n
    1. Exaggerated and Misleading Headlines\/Expressions:<\/strong> Claims creating expectations and lacking general validity.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    2. Sharing Concrete Success and References:<\/strong> Examples that may violate the confidentiality principle or be misleading. Even publicly available trial results constitute a violation of the prohibition when presented in a “success story” format.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    3. Comparative and Derogatory Content:<\/strong> Criticising other lawyers or offices, directly or indirectly, or implying being faster\/cheaper\/more successful than them.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    4. Direct Client Solicitation Calls:<\/strong> Aggressive expressions turning social media into a potential client channel.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    5. Clickbait and Sensational Content:<\/strong> Videos or posts devoid of legal value, prepared solely to attract attention, containing emotional exploitation.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

      The Fine Line Between “Giving Information” and “Advertising”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Sharing an impartial article on labour law legislation changes on LinkedIn, preparing a general training video on YouTube titled “Individual Application Process before the Constitutional Court”, or summarising a new precedent of the Court of Cassation regarding consumer cases on a blog are generally permissible as long as they remain within the boundaries of giving information. The common characteristic of such shares is that the content is objective, general, educational, and oriented towards public interest; the lawyer does not refer to their own services or success.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      An activity commencing merely as “informative” on social media may cross ethical boundaries when personal success is emphasised systematically, when potential clients are called upon, or when the content assumes a sensational form. Supervision is directed towards evaluating the general structure and intent (systematicity) rather than the content of each share individually.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      IV. REASONS FOR THE ADVERTISING BAN AND OBSTACLES AHEAD<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Regulations imposing promotional restrictions on the legal profession acquire meaning through the fundamental values they aim to protect. These values constitute the essence of the profession and distinguish it from ordinary commercial activity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      A. Risk of “Commodification” of the Profession and the Principle of Independence<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      The most fundamental concern is that legal assistance becomes a “commodity”, thereby causing the profession to lose its character as a public service and part of the justice mechanism. The “marketing pressure” inherently brought by advertising may shape the lawyer’s legal assessments and strategies with the concern of gaining clients. Today, the beginning of the disappearance of boundaries in commercial relations, the continued rapid increase in the number of lawyers, and in this context, the necessity for lawyers who have to secure a larger share in a market that is virtually narrowing, have made it imperative to effectively realise the search for clients. This situation undermines the lawyer’s ability to provide impartial and independent consultancy, shaking the trust that is the mainstay of the profession. Underlying the prohibition is the notion that justice is a public service that cannot be purchased, and that the provision of this service should be kept as separate as possible from market language.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      B. Prevention of Unfair Competition and Protection of the Client<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Unlimited promotion may lead to unfair competition. An unequal field of struggle arises between large law firms capable of making large-budget advertisements and small offices or solo practitioners. More importantly, there is client protection. Misleading, exaggerated, or “guarantee”-promising advertisements may deceive persons who have difficulty understanding the uncertainties of legal processes, may raise their expectations to unrealistic levels, and may leave them vulnerable. The purpose of the prohibition is to ensure that competition proceeds on the basis of quality, experience, and ethical principles, and to protect the client from deceptive marketing tactics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      C. Obstacles to Liberalisation in Turkey<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      The transition to a more liberal promotional model in Turkey encounters structural and cultural obstacles:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Cultural and Professional Conservatism: The entrenched understanding that lawyering is a profession requiring “character” and “dignity” regards advertising as “low-level marketing”. This creates strong resistance within the profession, particularly among experienced segments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Difficulty of Supervision: The practical difficulties of establishing an effective and fair disciplinary supervision mechanism in the face of the speed and dissemination capacity of the digital world lead to cautious behaviour regarding liberalisation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Tension Between Institutional Authority and Competition Law: The Turkish Bar Association’s authority to establish professional rules creates a potential area of conflict with the Competition Board’s regulations prohibiting “agreements and decisions restricting competition”. This necessitates that every change be placed on a legally sound foundation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Fear of Class Difference: The concern that unsupervised advertising will create deep inequality between large offices in big cities and lawyers in the countryside, and injustice in client access, is also frequently voiced in liberalisation debates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      ADVERTISING FREEDOM IN COMPARATIVE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Different legal systems have developed significantly varying approaches regarding lawyers’ promotional activities. These approaches are generally shaped around two main models.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      The first model is the “Constitutional Freedom Model” applied in the United States. With the 1977 decision of Bates v. Arizona, the US Supreme Court ruled that non-misleading lawyer advertisements fall within the freedom of commercial speech protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution. This approach emphasises market dynamics and the consumer’s right to information. The role of state bar associations is limited to preventing “misleading, deceptive, or coercive” advertisements; advertising itself is accepted as a fundamental right.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      The second and more common model is the “Controlled Freedom Model” adopted in many European countries (United Kingdom, Germany, France). In this model, the key concept is “professional communication”. Promotional activities are not prohibited but are strictly tied to principles such as objectivity, accuracy, protecting professional reputation, and preventing unfair competition. EU law, particularly through European Court of Justice decisions, has created a liberalising effect on national regulations by emphasising that professional rules should not unfairly restrict the free movement of services and competition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Turkey’s position indicates a transition phase between these two models. Turkish law, historically possessing a strict prohibition understanding, has taken a clear step towards the controlled freedom model with the 1998 Regulation and especially the comprehensive update in 2024. However, deep-rooted cultural and professional concerns regarding the commodification of the profession, supervisory difficulties, and the tension between competition law and ethics slow this transition and still necessitate a cautious approach in practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      CONCLUSION<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      It is observed that the lawyer advertising ban in Turkish law is evolving from a rigid prohibitory understanding towards a controlled and transparent communication model. The 2024 regulatory amendment is an important step that acknowledges the dynamics of the digital age and attempts to clarify the “ethical communication” framework. However, disciplinary decisions in practice demonstrate that the emphasis on traditional “professional dignity” and “principle of trust” still prevails heavily.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Greater flexibility, namely the adoption of more liberal rules, appears inevitable in the future; since the younger generation of lawyers’ adoption of digital communication, the supervisory effect of competition law on professional rules, and ultimately clients’ right to information will continuously create pressure towards liberalisation in the existing balance. For this process to proceed healthily, rather than a prohibition and penalty-focused approach, it is necessary to adopt a functional and predictable regulatory understanding that educates and guides lawyers on “accurate and ethical communication” and reduces uncertainties in this area.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Meral Sungurtekin \u00d6ZKAN, Avukatl\u0131k Mesle\u011fi Avukat\u0131n Hak ve Y\u00fck\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fckleri, \u0130zmir 2012, p.556.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Attorneys’ Act, Official Gazette 13168 (7 April 1969), Law No. 1136, Art. 55.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Turkish Bar Association Professional Rules, Turkish Bar Association Bulletin (26 January 1971), Art. 7.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Turkish Bar Association Professional Rules, Turkish Bar Association Bulletin (26 January 1971), Art. 7\/a,b,d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Turkish Bar Association Advertising Ban Regulation, Official Gazette 25296 (12 November 2023), Art. 5-7.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Murat YAVA\u015e, “T\u00fcrk Hukukunda Avukat\u0131n Reklam Yapma Yasa\u011f\u0131”, Marmara University Law Faculty Law Research Journal No:21, 2015, p. 736.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Murat YAVA\u015e, ibid., p. 733.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      8th Council of State Chamber, Decision dated 07.01.1976, No. 4395 E., 26 K.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Sel\u00e7uk \u00d6ZTEK, T\u00fcrk Hukukunda Avukatlar\u0131n Tabi Oldu\u011fu Reklam Yasa\u011f\u0131, Tribute to Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mehmet Somer, \u0130stanbul 2006, p. 673.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), Date of Access: 21 December 2025, https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/433\/350\/<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      Burak YILMAZLawyer \ufeff ABSTRACT This article analyses the regulations governing lawyers’ advertising and promotional activities in Turkish law within the context of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":3666,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[49,50,51,52,53,54,55],"class_list":["post-3488","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-makale","tag-advertising-ban","tag-attornys-act","tag-freedom-of-competition","tag-legal-profession","tag-liberal-profession","tag-professional-rules","tag-public-service"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/nazali.av.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3488","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/nazali.av.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/nazali.av.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nazali.av.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nazali.av.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3488"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/nazali.av.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3488\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3603,"href":"https:\/\/nazali.av.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3488\/revisions\/3603"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nazali.av.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3666"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/nazali.av.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3488"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nazali.av.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3488"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nazali.av.tr\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3488"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}