In a recent exposé by renowned journalist Seyhan Avşar, the Turkish judicial system finds itself under intense public scrutiny following revelations surrounding a controversial guardianship case involving prominent businessman İnan Kıraç. The scandal, now making headlines across the country, centers on the extraordinary legal fee of 128 million TL (approximately $4 million) reportedly awarded to an attorney appointed by court-assigned guardians.
Avşar’s reporting not only sheds light on this staggering sum but also reveals a deeper, more systemic issue that may be gripping parts of Türkiye’s judiciary: a possible network of influence and favoritism in the appointment of guardians and the delegation of high-stakes cases to relatively inexperienced lawyers.
The Guardianship Appointment and the 128 Million TL Fee
İnan Kıraç, one of Türkiye’s most prominent businessmen and philanthropists, was recently assigned two guardians by a decision from the Anadolu 2nd Civil Court of Peace. These court-appointed guardians then enlisted the legal services of attorney Eşref Kaya, a member of the Çorum Bar Association. The reported fee granted to Kaya—a staggering 128 million TL—has since raised eyebrows not only among the general public but within legal circles as well.
Such an unusually large payment, especially for a guardianship case, triggered suspicions of undue influence and potential corruption. Many questioned how an attorney from a regional bar association, without extensive seniority, could be granted such a lucrative role in such a high-profile case.
Journalist Seyhan Avşar Raises the Alarm
Seyhan Avşar, known for her fearless investigative journalism, detailed the matter in a series of articles. According to her reporting, the same small group of judges and attorneys are repeatedly involved in multiple guardianship cases. These patterns, she argues, suggest a concentrated group that may be manipulating legal appointments for financial gain.
“There are claims that a group has effectively seized control of guardianship cases at the courthouse. Inexperienced and relatively unknown lawyers are being awarded these high-value files repeatedly. The same judges are assigning the same guardians, who then pick the same lawyers,” Avşar noted.
Furthermore, Avşar cited allegations that a senior and well-known member of the judiciary may be providing references for the individuals repeatedly assigned to these roles. This claim, if proven true, could indicate systemic corruption and institutional favoritism at the highest levels.
Whistleblower Judge Transferred
In a dramatic twist, Avşar revealed the story of a female judge who, two years ago, attempted to disrupt this alleged network. While serving as the 13th Civil Court of Peace Judge, she took the rare step of directly contacting the court-appointed guardians via official memos, warning them about irregularities. She also revoked certain suspicious guardianship appointments, only to be met with backlash.
Interestingly, the guardians whose roles were terminated reportedly appealed the decision to higher courts, treating these guardianship roles as if they were personal legal assets.
Soon after, the whistleblower judge was reassigned to another province—an apparent punishment for her stand against the system. This move has fueled further outrage among legal experts who believe that her reassignment was an attempt to silence dissent within the judiciary.
The Young Attorneys Respond
In a bold move, Avşar also contacted the young lawyers who have been repeatedly appointed to guardianship cases. When asked how they were able to secure such appointments despite their limited experience, the attorneys pushed back.
“How do you even know how many cases we’ve been assigned? What makes you say it’s too many? What you’re doing amounts to a violation of personal data,” one of the lawyers retorted.
Another responded, “Perhaps we were chosen because we do our jobs well. It’s not about seniority; it’s about performance. If judges think we’re capable, that’s their decision.”
While their responses attempt to justify their involvement, many in the legal community argue that the repeated appointments lack transparency and fairness—especially given the enormous sums of money involved.
A Growing Pattern Across Türkiye
Although the Kıraç case has captured national attention, it may only be the tip of the iceberg. Legal observers suggest that this pattern—of assigning guardianships and related cases to select lawyers—could be happening in other cities as well. If so, it could represent a widespread abuse of judicial discretion, undermining public trust in Türkiye’s legal institutions.
The incident also raises questions about the criteria used to determine attorney fees in guardianship cases. The reported amount in the Kıraç file dwarfs standard legal fees for similar duties, suggesting either serious malpractice or a grave misjudgment on the part of those involved.
The Role of Oversight and Transparency
This growing controversy underscores the urgent need for greater judicial oversight and transparency. Legal watchdog groups and bar associations are calling for a thorough investigation—not just into the specific appointments in the Kıraç case but into the broader system that allowed such a decision to go unchallenged until media exposure.
There are growing demands for reforms in the guardianship system, including stricter selection processes for both guardians and attorneys, as well as an independent body to review and approve high-value legal fees. Without such reforms, critics warn, public confidence in the justice system will continue to erode.
The Bigger Picture: Ethics and Accountability in the Judiciary
Ultimately, the Kıraç guardianship scandal reflects a deeper ethical issue plaguing sections of the Turkish judiciary. If judges and court officials are found to be complicit in creating or tolerating a system that enables favoritism and inflated legal fees, then the implications could be severe—not just for the individuals involved but for the credibility of the entire system.
What began as a seemingly routine guardianship case has now spiraled into a full-blown legal firestorm, threatening to expose a network of influence that stretches across courts and bar associations. As the investigation continues, the Turkish public watches closely—hoping that justice will not only be done but also be seen to be done.
