1. Basic Legislative Framework and Legal Exemption

The operation of law offices in residential properties is guaranteed by a special regulation made in Article 43 of the Lawyers’ Act No. 1136. In accordance with this article, law offices may operate in independent sections registered as residences according to the Condominium Law (KMK) No. 634, without the permission of the unit owners or similar conditions. According to the legislation, contrary provisions in the management plan stating “independent sections shall only be used as residences” do not apply to law offices.

This regulation is an absolute exception to the general rule in Article 24/2 of the Condominium Law (KMK), which links the opening of workplaces in residences to a unanimous decision by the unit owners. Furthermore, since law offices are excluded from the scope of the Law on Business Opening and Operating Licenses No. 3572, pursuant to Article 2 thereof, there is no obligation to obtain a license from municipalities or to present a consent form from unit owners at this stage.

2. Constitutional Review and Established Jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation

The Constitutional Court has ruled that this exemption in Article 43 of the Lawyers’ Act does not violate the principle of equality in Article 10 of the Constitution (Constitutional Court, 04/06/2014, 2014/75 E., 2014/102  K.). The Court, considering the public service nature of legal practice, affirmed that these offices could be evaluated differently from other commercial establishments and that this restriction on property rights was lawful.

The 20th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation consistently applies this legal status in its recent decisions:

Supreme Court 20th Civil Chamber, 21.02.2018, 2017/2517 E., 2018/1255 K.: It has been ruled that the provisions of the management plan shall not be taken into consideration and the consent of the condominium owners shall not be sought for a law office operating in an independent section registered as a dwelling in the title deed.

Supreme Court 20th Civil Chamber, 21.02.2018, 2017/2479 E., 2018/1254 K.: Similarly, it has been explicitly stated that a law office can operate in places designated as dwellings without the consent of the condominium owners.

Supreme Court 20th Civil Chamber, 26.02.2019, 2017/9992 E., 2019/1283 K.: It has been emphasized that the unanimity requirement in Article 24/2 of the Condominium Law (KMK) is subject to an exception for law offices.

3. Exceptions and Restrictions in Practice

It is observed that this broad exemption granted to law offices is restricted in some specific situations:

A. Urban Conservation Areas and Zoning Plan Obstacles: According to the recent decisions of the Council of State, if the area where the immovable property is located is an “Urban Conservation Area” and is marked as a “strictly residential area” in the zoning plan, office use may be prevented in accordance with conservation-oriented zoning plans.

Council of State 2nd Chamber, 29.12.2022, 2022/3937 E., 2022/7000 K.: The action to terminate the non-residential use of a law office located in a residential zone within an urban conservation area was found to be lawful.

Council of State 4th Chamber, 24.01.2024, 2023/8737 E., 2024/536 K.: The municipal action aimed at ensuring the use of the building in an urban conservation area for residential purposes was affirmed.

B. Neighborhood Law and Rule of Honesty: Within the scope of Article 18 of the Condominium Law, if the activities of the law office cause noise or disturbing actions to a degree that bothers other condominium owners, intervention may be requested.

C. Contradictory Decisions: In some decisions, despite the clear provision in the Attorneyship Law, general provisions of the Condominium Law are seen to be applied. For example; Supreme Court 5th Civil Chamber, 05.04.2023, 2022/13390 E., 2023/3496  K. in its decision numbered, it was argued that the use of a residential property as a law office is subject to the unanimous consent of the condominium owners and otherwise, it must be restored to its original state. However, this decision contradicts established higher court jurisprudence and the current legal regulation in the legislative note.

4. Comparison with Other Professional Groups

Court decisions differentiate law offices from other liberal professions such as architecture or engineering. Council of State 2nd Chamber, 20.04.2021, 2021/5821 E., 2021/1364  K. in its decision numbered, it was particularly emphasized that while the unanimous consent of condominium owners is sought for architectural offices, this exceptional provision states that such consent is not required for law offices.

5. Secondary Sources and General Workplace Assessment

Decisions considered as secondary sources, by confirming the strict rules regarding the opening of general workplaces in residential areas, highlight the importance of the exception granted to law offices:

Council of State 4th Chamber, 20.11.2023, 2023/9146 E., 2023/6399 K. (Secondary Source): It has been stated that unanimous consent of the flat owners is mandatory for businesses such as cafes/art galleries in properties designated as residences.

Supreme Court 5th Civil Chamber, 26.03.2025, 2024/12166 E., 2025/4099 K. (Secondary Source): It has been stated that the provision in the management plan, “use only as a residence,” is binding for workplaces such as clothing stores and is considered a reason for eviction.

Supreme Court 5th Civil Chamber, 20.05.2025, 2025/4505 E., 2025/7970 K. (Secondary Source): It has been implied that even activities such as clinics cannot be carried out without the permission of the flat owners in the face of the prohibitory provision in the management plan, but there might be a special situation for law offices outside the scope of Article 24 of the Condominium Law.

In conclusion; In accordance with legislation and established high court precedents, lawyers can open offices in properties registered as residences in the title deed, without obtaining permission from the flat owners and without being subject to the prohibitions in the management plan. However, this right is limited by special zoning restrictions in urban protected areas and general neighborhood law rules.

1. Fundamental Legal Regulation (Attorneyship Law No. 1136, Art. 43)

Regulation: With the amendment made by Law No. 6460 dated 30/4/2013; the provision has been introduced stating that “According to Condominium Law No. 634, in independent sections of the main property designated as residences, law offices can operate without seeking the permission of the flat owners or similar conditions.”

Obstacle from the Management Plan: Pursuant to the same article, provisions to the contrary in the management plan do not apply in this regard. In other words, even if the management plan states “independent sections are used only as residences,” this provision does not prevent the opening of a law office.

2. Evaluation Regarding the Condominium Law (KMK) (Art. 24)

General Rule: Pursuant to Article 24/2 of the Condominium Law, opening a workplace in residential areas is normally subject to a unanimous decision of the unit owners.

Special Exception: With the paragraph added to Article 24 of the Condominium Law in 2011, a temporary regulation was made for law offices, but with the amendment to the Attorneys’ Act in 2013, this situation was made a permanent and absolute right. For this reason, law offices are exempt from the unanimity requirement in Article 24 of the Condominium Law.

3. Workplace Opening and License Exemption (Law No. 3572, Art. 2)

License Requirement: Pursuant to Article 2 of Law No. 3572 on Workplace Opening and Operating Licenses, offices opened under the Attorneys’ Act are outside the scope of this law.

Conclusion: Law offices do not need to obtain a “Workplace Opening and Operating License” from the municipality. Therefore, the “unit owners’ consent form” requested by municipalities during the licensing process cannot be demanded from lawyers.

4. Exceptions to Be Considered in Practice

Urban Conservation Areas and Zoning Plans: According to the current jurisprudence of the Council of State (e.g., Council of State 2nd Chamber 2022/3937 E.), if the area where the immovable property is located is a “Urban Conservation Area” and is marked as an “absolute residential area” in the zoning plan, office use may be prevented by the municipality or the relevant administration, as required by conservation-oriented zoning plans.

Neighbor Law: If noise, heavy traffic, or disruptive activities occur to a degree that disturbs other flat owners during the operation of a law office, intervention may be requested within the framework of Article 18 of the Property Ownership Law (Use in accordance with the rule of good faith).

Purpose of Use: This exemption is only for “office” activities. If the independent section is used as both a residence and an office (home-office), in some cases, different evaluations may be made concerning bar association disciplinary rules or tax legislation.

In Summary: Lawyers can open offices in properties registered as residences in the land registry, without obtaining permission from the flat owners and without being subject to prohibitions in the management plan.

For the statement made by the Union of Turkish Bar Associations in 2013 on this matter, see.