In the legal industry, information is evolving, legislation is being renewed, practical examples are increasing, and the system is growing—in other words, inland seas are becoming oceans.
Within the system, traditional lawyering is attempting to integrate itself into an innovative perspective, undergoing a painful process. This situation has both positive and negative impacts on the quality of services, with failure and temporary solutions seeming to be predominant. There are more and more non-specialized examples and trials.
On the other hand, ambitious Full Service law firms are rising, and their emergence has consequences. As these structures rise, some groups of lawyers are trying to gain ground under the guise of specialization, expanding and rising from narrowing fields.
Lists of specialists in labor law, competition law, personal data law, IT law, and so on are forming. These specialized offices claim to have the best knowledge in their defined areas and confidently assert this across all channels.
However, in legal systems, it is not possible to declare oneself a specialist in a particular field alone. Although this claim may have some credibility, in practice, we see that such statements are not sustainable.
This is because the chosen field must have connections with other fields. For example, a lawyer claiming to specialize in competition law must also know commercial law, administrative law, and, to some extent, criminal law, consumer law, intellectual property law, corporate law, and contract law. Otherwise, providing real legal service is not possible.
Similarly, a law firm claiming to specialize in personal data law must at least know IT law, commercial law, administrative law, criminal law, labor law, and intellectual property law. Incomplete legal service by a lawyer cannot be remedied later.
Of course, it is not possible for a lawyer to know all these areas. Specializing in two or at most three fields seems feasible. To meet this need, Full Service structures are rising in our country as well. Different specialists working in departments, services, or centers within the same office support each other and carry out joint work.
In this context, the need is for Full Service structures. This reality cannot be covered up by different discourses. We must speak, write, and acknowledge this. Specialization is indeed a correct strategy, but it must be within the framework of a correct structure and implementation.
Full Service is a challenging structure; its management model, operational model, and sharing and fee model are different, but it is the most important structure where concrete specializations can thrive.
If a Full Service structure cannot be established, then it is inevitable for offices claiming specialization to collaborate with other offices. This collaboration is also the correct approach. This is why lawyer networks are very widespread abroad. Such networks often top the list in business development strategies.
However, in Türkiye, despite the high talent and competence of Turkish lawyers, these styles cannot often be developed due to trust issues. Broad networks based on trust and rules cannot be established, and very narrow collaborations occur among friends. Sometimes, two longtime friends lose their relationship due to trust issues, and these matters also need to be discussed and addressed.
Now there is an ocean, and the chance of individual structures to develop is slim. Therefore, the development of specializations in this way does not seem possible. Of course, the opposite is always possible through different methods.
The legal world is vast. Lawyers working individually should seek to collaborate with other offices, try making special agreements, or aim to establish a corporate structure with strict rules that can evolve into a Full Service structure over time.
Alternatively, they should enter into Full Service structures. There are different ways and methods to achieve this.
Various articles will develop these topics over time. There is work and growth for lawyers, as long as they are genuinely open to new ways beyond just wanting them.
In other words, it is possible to swim in the ocean too.
