Read the advertising restriction before proposing work
The scope of content work for a law firm must be narrowed according to professional rules. Article 7(e) of the current TBB regulation addresses online advertising and paid or unpaid content foregrounding. An “information” label does not provide general campaign permission.
This guide therefore provides no audience, media-budget, lead-ad or CPL optimization instructions. Define the purpose and actual effect of the proposed work. An available platform option, technical acceptance or a competitor’s conduct cannot establish professional appropriateness. Applying an ordinary service-business acquisition template to a law firm is an unsuitable starting point.
The TBB’s July 2026 announcement describes the new monitoring center’s framework for referring alleged violations, including online communication, to relevant bars. It does not liberalize advertising. The responsible lawyer evaluates the activity; an implementation team cannot replace that decision.
Review the website through an information and function inventory
Limit the scope of a technical website review explicitly: broken pages, access faults, readability and inaccurate information. Do not silently add client-acquisition page, code or keyword plans intended to improve rankings. Calling the work SEO does not remove professional boundaries.
List the pages first. For each, record its purpose, content owner, date, external services and unnecessary repetition. Have the responsible lawyer assess the identity, practice-area description and contact information against current requirements. An element appearing on the old website does not automatically justify retaining it in a new design.
Review old campaign pages and redirects separately. Checking that a document, form or menu opens the correct information is a functional task; a hidden acquisition redirect is a different activity. Specify the concrete problem and expected function before making a change. Acceptance can mean that approved information appears correctly rather than an increase in new clients.
| Review area | Concrete question | Decision owner |
|---|---|---|
| Identity and information | Is it accurate and within scope? | Responsible lawyer |
| Page function | Does the link open the right information? | Implementation team and content owner |
| External tool | What data does it receive and why? | Data controller and technical team |
| Old content | Are purpose and current suitability confirmed? | Legal content owner |
| Change | Is the approved version actually live? | Publishing owner |
FROM READING TO A NEXT STEP
Define approved website work through an explicit scope
Translate information and functions approved by the responsible lawyer into a concrete list of page, usability and technical implementation deliverables.
Educational content is not an automatic exception
Editorial preparation can describe a concrete information need; it cannot manufacture publication permission or disguise client acquisition. Article 7(c) also addresses sharing general, abstract information to obtain work. “Make an educational video” is not a sufficient campaign formula.
Record the question, source date and relevant jurisdiction in the draft. Distinguish a current rule, judicial decision and an editor’s explanation. Do not add an automatic solution to a specific dispute, a victory promise or a superiority message. Clear and accurate wording does not establish that every distribution method is appropriate.
A February 2026 disciplinary decision examines Instagram posts presenting case outcomes as professional success promotion. Its particular sanction is not a fixed penalty for every situation. Do not add client identities, case details or success narratives as website trust evidence; existing examples require renewed legal review.
Source record
Record the date and the statement each source supports. Do not portray an old provision as current.
Content decision
The responsible lawyer assesses purpose, scope and publication form. Text approval is not automatic distribution approval.
Version record
Retain the approved title, text and sources. Review additions made after publication again.
Make the contact route clear and proportionate
Usability review can investigate whether permitted contact information is discoverable, readable on mobile and supported by clear error messages. This is not an offer to create consultation ads or a commercial conversion funnel. Visitors should understand what happened without the interface misrepresenting the action’s meaning.
If a form is needed, its purpose and fields should be decided by the legal content owner. Do not request unnecessary files, health information, identity documents or lengthy case narratives at first contact. Do not make a public messaging inbox the default destination for sensitive documents. Explain what submission does and who receives the message.
A contact record must not be presented as acceptance of a case, formation of a lawyer-client relationship or confirmation of an appointment at a specified time. An automated success message should describe the actual action only. Verify delivery and authorized access using a safe test record. Do not use real personal details or create a case or enquiry in a visitor’s name.
Evaluate tags, cookies and transfers against their purpose
Data-flow review can identify what an existing tag or event sends; it does not mean every legal website needs advertising tracking. Unnecessary advertising events, audience construction and transferring case information to outside tools are not proposed activities in this guide.
A KVKK decision discussing general principles explains purpose-related, limited and proportionate processing. Its cookie and consent decision addresses making an information request conditional on marketing consent. One generic approval box cannot make every purpose appropriate.
Turn these principles into implementation questions: which page sends data to which provider, does a URL or event name expose a topic, who has access and when is the record removed? Check that actual behavior agrees with the cookie-preference interface. Review current transfer conditions separately; do not automatically apply an old decision’s international-transfer statements to every present-day processing activity.
Define internal support separately from advertising acquisition
Technology support for internal operations may be evaluated for limited tasks such as preparing document lists or organizing approval steps. Sending confidential case information to a general AI tool, generating automatic legal conclusions or targeting a person from their problem is outside that scope.
Record each tool’s data inputs, access owner, reviewer and recovery route. Do not test with a real file when synthetic records can establish the function. Automated responses should not replace the responsible lawyer’s assessment. Accelerating a workflow that sends the wrong document to an unauthorized person is not an improvement.
If workflow design methods are used for content approval or internal task tracking, narrow the technical contract accordingly. Advertising, bulk promotional messages and client-list transfers should not appear as automatic package additions. The deliverable list should explain what is actually implemented and who will use it.
Complete publication and maintenance with a control record
A website-maintenance control record should identify resolved faults, changed pages and the approved version. Impressions, followers or consultation counts cannot establish professional appropriateness. Keep technical reporting, legally reviewed content and implemented functions as distinct records.
Give the implementation team only necessary access. Deliver the approved information, sources, tools and maintenance owner at handover. Do not assume an earlier approval extends to every new widget, theme, tag or content behavior. Identify who can stop and reverse a problematic change.
Inventory
List pages, profiles, outside tools and old content; state the actual purpose.
Evaluation
The lawyer assesses professional scope and the implementation team verifies technical behavior.
Implementation
Publish only approved information and functions and verify with safe records.
Maintenance
Retain version, source, access and change records and update them when needed.
BEFORE YOU DECIDE
Frequently asked questions
Can lawyers in Turkey acquire clients through Meta ads?
This guide provides no such permission or campaign plan. Apply current professional advertising restrictions; online advertising options do not establish appropriateness.
Is an educational video automatically exempt?
No. Evaluate purpose and distribution together. An educational appearance does not give general permission for promotional client acquisition.
Can SEO circumvent the advertising prohibition?
No. A technical label cannot establish appropriateness. Work-acquisition and competitive methods require assessment; this guide proposes no ranking or acquisition plan.
Is Meta accepting an advertisement sufficient?
No. Platform acceptance and Turkish professional rules require different assessments. Technical publication is not a legal approval.
Does using an agency change the lawyer’s responsibility?
Publishing through a third party does not remove professional obligations. The responsible lawyer should review purpose, content, tools and distribution.
What technical website work can be considered?
Explicitly scoped tasks such as displaying legally approved information correctly, fixing access faults, readability and proportionate data-flow review may be considered. They do not imply campaign permission.
LET’S DEFINE THE SCOPE
Define approved website work through an explicit scope
Translate information and functions approved by the responsible lawyer into a concrete list of page, usability and technical implementation deliverables.
Discuss technical website scope