The party that loses a case is required to pay, in addition to the fee it pays its own lawyer, an attorney fee to the winning party’s lawyer as well. This is called the opposing party’s attorney fee (karşı vekalet ücreti) and it forms one of the items of litigation costs (yargılama gideri). The amount of this fee is determined by the court on the basis of the Minimum Attorney Fee Tariff (Avukatlık Asgari Ücret Tarifesi, AAÜT), prepared by the Türkiye Barolar Birliği (the Union of Turkish Bar Associations) and published in the Resmi Gazete (the Official Gazette) dated 4 November 2025 and numbered 33067. This article explains by whom and how the opposing party’s attorney fee is paid, and the mechanism by which it is calculated.
Standing outside the legal relationship established between the parties as a result of the case, this fee item, which appears separately in the court’s judgment, is one of the matters frequently confused in practice. One party winning the case does not automatically determine the amount of the attorney fee to be collected from the other side; the amount varies according to the type of case, its value and the method laid down in the tariff.
Key Takeaways
- The opposing party’s attorney fee is a litigation cost paid by the losing party to the winning party’s lawyer.
- Under Avukatlık Kanunu (the Attorneyship Law) m. 164/son, this fee belongs as a rule to the lawyer, not to the client.
- The current tariff was published in the Resmi Gazete dated 4 November 2025 and numbered 33067, and entered into force on the date of publication.
- The fee awarded by the court may not be less than the amount in the tariff, nor more than three times that amount.
- The calculation is made on a fixed (maktu) basis or a proportional (nispi, tied to the value of the case) basis, depending on the type of case.
What Is the Opposing Party’s Attorney Fee?
The opposing party’s attorney fee is a litigation cost awarded by the court at the end of a case or enforcement proceedings (icra takibi), to cover the attorney fee of the party found to be in the right, and payable by the party found to be in the wrong. This fee is independent of the contractual fee agreement (ücret sözleşmesi) the parties have made with their own lawyers.
When the court orders the losing party to bear the litigation costs, it also awards, among those costs, the attorney fee payable to the opposing party’s lawyer. The amount of the fee is determined according to the type of case and the method provided for in the AAÜT.
Who Pays the Opposing Party’s Attorney Fee, and to Whom Is It Paid?
The opposing party’s attorney fee is paid by the party that loses the case or the enforcement proceedings. The fee is paid not to the winning party itself but directly to the lawyer representing that party, since Avukatlık Kanunu m. 164/son provides that this fee belongs to the lawyer.
What Does It Mean That the Fee Belongs to the Lawyer and Not the Client?
When the client wins the case, the client pays the contractual fee (akdi ücret) to its own lawyer; the attorney fee imposed on the other side by the court is a separate item and belongs to the lawyer. Unless otherwise agreed in the written fee agreement between the parties, the opposing party’s attorney fee may not be set off against the client’s contractual fee debt.
This distinction gives rise to confusion from time to time in practice. Although a client may think “I won the case, so the other side will pay the fee”, that amount passes not to the client but to the lawyer representing the client.
The Difference Between the Contractual Fee and the Opposing Party’s Attorney Fee
The contractual fee is the fee freely agreed between the client and the lawyer and set out in the attorney fee agreement. The opposing party’s attorney fee, on the other hand, is an amount the court awards of its own motion at the end of the case in accordance with the AAÜT, and is independent of the will of the parties.
These two fees arise from different sources and belong to different persons: the contractual fee is the fee the lawyer is to receive from the client, whereas the opposing party’s attorney fee is the fee the lawyer is to receive from the losing party. Both fees may arise at the same time in the same case and are claimed independently of one another.
In the attorney fee agreement the parties may agree whether or not the opposing party’s attorney fee is to be set off against the contractual fee. Where the agreement says nothing to the contrary, Avukatlık Kanunu m. 164/son applies and the opposing party’s attorney fee is regarded as belonging to the lawyer.
The 2026 AAÜT: Entry into Force and Scope
The Minimum Attorney Fee Tariff prepared by the Türkiye Barolar Birliği was published in the Resmi Gazete dated 4 November 2025 and numbered 33067, and entered into force on the date of publication. Although this tariff is referred to as the “2025-2026 AAÜT”, it is the current tariff applied in cases and proceedings during 2026.
An amendment to the tariff was also made by publication in the Resmi Gazete dated 28 March 2026 and numbered 33207, revising the provision of article 14/5 concerning certain types of work such as the right of reply (tekzip), the removal of internet content, and objections to administrative fines heard before the Sulh Ceza Hâkimliği (the Criminal Judgeship of Peace). Keeping track of such updates matters for the correct application of the current amount. Since the tariff is redrawn every year, which tariff applies in cases brought in earlier years and still pending is a further point that has to be assessed separately.
The Fixed and Proportional Fee Mechanism
The AAÜT regulates fees according to two basic methods: in matters whose subject cannot be measured in money, a fixed (maktu) fee applies; in cases whose subject is money or a value measurable in money, a rate tied to the value of the case and decreasing in stages (the proportional, nispi, fee) applies.
Cases in Which the Fixed Fee Applies
For divorce, declaratory actions or certain types of work and proceedings, a fixed amount is set in the tariff. The table below gives examples of fixed fees; the amounts are the official figures set out in the relevant part of the tariff.
| Type of Work/Case | Fixed Fee Under the 2025-2026 Tariff |
|---|---|
| Matters pursued before enforcement offices (icra müdürlüğü) | 11.000 TL |
| Cases pursued before the Civil Courts of First Instance (Asliye Mahkemeleri) | 45.000 TL |
| Cases pursued before the Assize Courts (Ağır Ceza Mahkemeleri) | 65.000 TL |
The amounts are given on the basis of the AAÜT published in the Resmi Gazete dated 4 November 2025 and numbered 33067; for the exact amount applicable in a particular file, the current text of the tariff should be checked.
Cases in Which the Proportional Fee Applies
In cases whose subject is money, such as debt recovery and compensation claims, the fee is calculated by dividing the value of the case into bands. A separate rate set in the AAÜT is applied to each band, and the results for the bands are added together to arrive at the final fee. As the value of the case rises, the rate applied decreases in stages.
This staged structure corresponds to a proportionally higher fee in low-value cases and a lower one in high-value cases. Since the proportional fee calculation varies according to the value of the particular case, the relevant section of the tariff should be consulted for the current bands and rates.
The logic of the proportional fee system is to prevent the fee in high-value cases from growing out of proportion to the value of the case. For that reason the tariff provides a lower rate for bands above a certain threshold, so as to create a cost structure that is foreseeable for claimant and defendant alike.
The Three-Times Rule
Under article 1 of the AAÜT, the attorney fee to be imposed on the other side by the court may not be less than the amount written in the tariff, nor more than three times that amount. Within that range the court determines the final amount, taking into account the lawyer’s labour, the importance of the matter and the length of the case.
This rule shows that the tariff sets only a floor, and that the court may award a higher fee according to the features of the particular case. The upper limit of three times may not, however, be exceeded; that limitation frames the court’s discretion.
What Happens Where the Claim Is Partly Upheld or Partly Dismissed?
Where the case is partly upheld and partly dismissed, both parties are regarded as partly in the right and partly in the wrong. In that situation the court may award attorney fees to the parties separately according to the ratio between the part upheld and the part dismissed; a form of set-off is carried out between the parties.
In practice the court orders the defendant to pay an attorney fee for the part the claimant has won, and the claimant to pay one for the part in respect of which the defendant has succeeded. These two fees may be set off against each other, producing a net amount payable to one of the parties.
In cases with more than one defendant, it is also possible for an attorney fee to be awarded separately against each defendant according to its share of liability. This becomes important particularly in cases where there is no joint and several liability (müteselsil sorumluluk) and each defendant is held liable according to its own degree of fault.
A Separate Attorney Fee at the Appeal and Cassation Stages
Even where the case concludes before the court of first instance, if one of the parties applies to the regional appeal court (istinaf) or to cassation (temyiz), a separate opposing party’s attorney fee arises for those stages too. The party found to be in the wrong at the end of the appeal or cassation review is also held liable for the attorney fee at those stages.
The fees at the appeal and cassation stages are likewise regulated under separate headings in the AAÜT and generally provide for an amount or rate of their own, different from the fee at first instance. For that reason, once all stages of a file have been completed, more than one attorney fee item may have arisen between the parties.
Attorney Fees in Cases Concluded by Settlement
Where the parties settle (sulh) while the case is continuing, whether an opposing party’s attorney fee is awarded and in what amount varies according to the content of the settlement agreement and the stage the case has reached. The parties may regulate the question of the attorney fee separately in the settlement agreement.
If the settlement agreement contains no express provision on the attorney fee, the court may make an assessment in accordance with the provisions of the AAÜT. For that reason, including the question of the attorney fee in the settlement negotiations prevents uncertainties that might otherwise arise later.
Collection of the Opposing Party’s Attorney Fee
The opposing party’s attorney fee awarded in the court’s judgment may, once the judgment has become final and enforceable, be collected if necessary by way of enforcement proceedings. The lawyer as the creditor party may make this fee the subject of proceedings in its own name.
Where the debtor party does not pay voluntarily, the fee may be collected by commencing enforcement proceedings based on a judgment (ilamlı icra takibi). A separate attorney fee relating to the enforcement proceedings may also arise in this process; that fee too is determined according to the enforcement proceedings fees in the AAÜT.
Where the debtor lacks the means to pay, the actual collection of the attorney fee awarded may be delayed or may be only partly possible. In that situation the lawyer may continue to pursue the enforcement file together with the other claims; so long as the fee awarded has not become time-barred under the statute of limitations (zamanaşımı), the right to claim it remains in existence.
Attorney Fees in Mediation and in Mediation as a Condition Precedent to Suit
In certain types of dispute, applying to mediation (arabuluculuk) before bringing a case is a condition precedent to suit. If the parties reach agreement in the mediation process, no case is brought and so no opposing party’s attorney fee awarded by a court arises either; the question of the fee may be regulated separately in the mediation settlement record.
If no agreement is reached in mediation and a case is brought, the process proceeds according to the ordinary rules of procedure and, at the end of the case, the opposing party’s attorney fee is again determined in accordance with the AAÜT. The attorney fee at the mediation stage and the opposing party’s attorney fee at the litigation stage are different items and should not be confused.
The opposing party’s attorney fee makes up a significant item in the total cost of a file, particularly in commercial debt recovery cases; in our article addressing the process of recovering a commercial debt we cover enforcement and litigation costs in full.
VAT and Tax Matters in Attorney Fees
The opposing party’s attorney fee awarded by the court is treated as falling within the lawyer’s self-employment income (serbest meslek kazancı), and the lawyer is obliged to issue an invoice for that amount. One of the questions debated in practice is whether the amount awarded is inclusive or exclusive of KDV (VAT).
The general tendency is that the amount awarded by the court is the net attorney fee and that KDV is to be calculated separately on top of that amount. In particular disputes, however, the reasoning of the court’s judgment and the form of the claim in the enforcement proceedings may be decisive on this point. Where doubt arises as to tax obligations, an assessment specific to the file is required.
Whether a Lawyer May Waive the Opposing Party’s Attorney Fee
Since the opposing party’s attorney fee is a right belonging to the lawyer, the lawyer decides as a rule whether or not to waive it. Some attorney fee agreements may, however, contain provisions to the effect that the opposing party’s attorney fee is to be set off against the contractual fee or left to the client.
Where there is such a contractual provision, it is valid in the internal relationship between the parties; to whom the fee is to be paid under the court’s judgment is nonetheless determined according to the general rule of the law. In practice lawyers may, of their own free will, pass on to the client the opposing party’s attorney fee they have collected; this is not a legal obligation but an agreement between the parties themselves.
Calculate Your Attorney Fee on an Estimated Basis
To gain a general idea of how the opposing party’s attorney fee is calculated according to the value of the case, KCD Hukuk’s attorney fee calculation tool may be used. The tool gives an estimated result based on the logic of the current tariff; the exact amount may vary according to the position of the file at the court stage.
The current text of the tariff and official announcements may be reached through the official announcement of the Türkiye Barolar Birliği. For an assessment specific to a file in the course of legal advisory work, KCD Hukuk’s Legal Advisory practice area may be consulted.
For the calculation of interest accruing on an attorney fee you may refer to our article on statutory interest and default interest, and for the official text of the current Minimum Attorney Fee Tariff to the official website of the Türkiye Barolar Birliği. You may examine the current text of the Avukatlık Kanunu, on which the tariff is based, on the TBMM (the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye) legislation page.
A further question that arises in disputes concerning the opposing party’s attorney fee is whether mediation as a condition precedent to suit applies; on this point our article on compulsory mediation in commercial cases may be consulted. For companies to conduct their representation arrangements in an orderly manner, our article on the obligation to retain a lawyer in a joint stock company may also serve as a guide. Where the collection of an attorney fee claim through enforcement arises, our article on proceedings specific to negotiable instruments may also be of assistance.
What Will the Other Side Do?
Where the opposing party’s attorney fee is claimed, the losing party also has a defence strategy against that obligation; knowing that strategy in advance clarifies how to demonstrate that the calculation has been made correctly.
The defence that the tariff is contrary to equity. The liable party may argue that the amount calculated is out of proportion to the value of the case. That argument is met with the Avukatlık Kanunu, which is the statutory basis of the tariff, and the text of the fee tariff for the relevant year.
The defence that a proportional apportionment should be made because the party was partly successful. This argument arises where the case has concluded with the claim partly upheld and partly dismissed. In that situation a separate calculation must be made according to the ratio between the parts upheld and dismissed.
The defence that interest cannot be charged separately on an attorney fee. This objection is frequently raised at the enforcement stage. The argument is met with the settled practice that a claim for an attorney fee is an independent item of claim and is subject to default interest (temerrüt faizi).
The defence that special limitations should be applied. Objections of this kind are assessed by examining whether the relevant special provisions are applicable to the particular case, according to the nature of the case.
The defence that the attorney fee should be recalculated because of an amendment of pleadings. This objection may arise where the value of the case has changed through an amendment of pleadings (ıslah). In that situation, the value of the case on which the attorney fee is to be calculated is determined according to the date of the amendment and the rules of procedure.
Which objection comes to the fore varies according to the outcome and the value of the case; for that reason it is important that the bases of the attorney fee calculation be set out clearly in the file. Keeping a clear record of the dates of steps in the proceedings such as a partial acceptance or an amendment of pleadings makes it easier to assess in advance which objection will be raised. To assess in advance which defence your file will meet, you may get in touch.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who pays the opposing party’s attorney fee?
The opposing party’s attorney fee is paid by the party that loses the case or the enforcement proceedings; the fee is awarded by the court as a litigation cost.
Is the opposing party’s attorney fee paid to the client or to the lawyer?
Under Avukatlık Kanunu m. 164/son this fee belongs as a rule to the lawyer, not to the client.
Which AAÜT applies in 2026?
The Minimum Attorney Fee Tariff published in the Resmi Gazete dated 4 November 2025 and numbered 33067, partly updated on 28 March 2026, applies.
May the court award a fee different from the amount in the tariff?
Yes; provided that it is not less than the amount in the tariff and does not exceed three times that amount, the court may award a different amount according to the lawyer’s labour and the nature of the case.
What is the difference between the proportional and the fixed fee?
The fixed fee is a set amount and applies in matters whose subject cannot be measured in money; the proportional fee is a fee calculated with staged rates tied to the value of the case.
How does partial acceptance of a claim affect the attorney fee?
Where a claim is partly upheld, the court may award separate attorney fees to both parties according to the ratio between the parts upheld and dismissed, and those amounts may be set off against each other.
How is the opposing party’s attorney fee collected?
If no voluntary payment is made after the judgment has become final, it may be collected by way of enforcement proceedings based on a judgment.
Does a separate attorney fee arise at the appeal and cassation stages?
Yes; the party found to be in the wrong at the end of the appeal or cassation review may also be held liable for the attorney fee separately regulated in the AAÜT for those stages.
May a lawyer waive the opposing party’s attorney fee?
Since the fee is a right belonging to the lawyer, the lawyer decides on this of its own volition; if the agreement provides otherwise, that provision is valid in the internal relationship between the parties.
Sources
- Türkiye Barolar Birliği (the Union of Turkish Bar Associations)
- Türkiye Barolar Birliği (the Union of Turkish Bar Associations)
- tbmm.gov.tr
Related Articles
- Recovering a Commercial Debt: From Formal Notice to Enforcement, Step by Step
- Statutory Interest, Default Interest and Advance Interest: The Differences
- Compulsory Mediation in Commercial Cases: Scope, Time Limits, Final Record
- The Obligation to Retain a Lawyer in a Joint Stock Company (2026)
- The Difference Between Proceedings Specific to Negotiable Instruments and Proceedings Without a Judgment
- Withdrawal and Exclusion from Membership in a Limited Liability Company
This article is for general information purposes and does not take the place of legal advice. Your particular situation requires a separate assessment of your file.
This article has been prepared on the basis of the legislation in force as at 17.09.2026.
KCD Hukuk
Find out about our firm
