NEWSLETTER-2020-metin

272 NEWSLETTER 2020 the opponent who does not receive any legal assistance from the attorney of the business owner is held jointly responsible for the attorney fee arising from the contract concluded bet- ween the business owner and attorney does not comply with the nature and purpose of the attorney fee. • Lastly, the settlement institution ensures the re-establishment of social peace, which is disrupted by filing a lawsuit, and ensures that the parties obtain their rights and receivables as soon as possible. In addition, the settlement is encouraged by the Code of Civil Procedure numbered 6100, which regu- lates the judge’s invitation of parties to settlement. It is also not right to place an obstacle before the implementation of such an important institution in terms of procedural law in the form of holding the person (the opponent), who is not a party to the contract, responsible for the contractual attorney fee. The CCGAUJ has, therefore, ordered and judged based on the above-stated explanations: “That the ‘contractual attorney fee ’ that must be paid to the attorney in accordance with the attorney fee agre- ement between the attorney and client, is not included in the attorney fee that both parties will be responsible for the payment of in favor of the counter party’s attorney, ‘in cases concluded with an agreement and which are left without further follow-up,’ that is one of the ‘ joint liability situations of the fee’ as regulated under Article 165 of the Law.” The Justifications of Dissenting Votes Three dissenting vote justifications were drafted against the Deci- sion. In the first of these justifications, it was stated that the subjects of the attorney agreement, attorney fee and joint liability as to fee, regulated in Articles 163, 164 and 165, respectively, of the Law follow a certain order and system. Also, Article 165 is quite clear consider-