BRIDGING BARRIERS: CONVERSATIONS ACROSS LEGAL CULTURES  

An Oral History Series by Emails to a Young Lawyer
Curated & Presented by Can Yildirim
Interview No. 2

GUEST BIO

 

Learn more about the Bridging Barriers series HERE.

Read my reflections on the first interview and watch its recording HERE.

 

The second feature in the Bridging Barriers series introduces Bukem Gebelek, a Turkish-born, U.S.-educated lawyer now practicing U.S. corporate law in London. From Istanbul University to Harvard Law School, and from Clifford Chance to Skadden’s transatlantic M&A practice, her path offers a striking portrait of what it means to live and lead across legal systems. In our conversation, Bukem reflects with sharp insight on how legal voice, training, and perspective evolve through cross-border experience—and how those very shifts can become a source of professional strength.

Throughout our conversation, she identified with clarity the subtle, yet deeply formative, shifts that happen when a lawyer begins to “think” in a new legal language, even while still carrying the structure of another.

In this post, I want to reflect on a few key moments from our conversation and draw connections to the story Sezgi Guler shared in our first interview. Although their paths differed, I was struck by how aligned their deeper insights were, especially around language, communication, and what it means to become not just a good lawyer, but a truly useful one.

 

Learning to Let Go of Legal Ornamentation

 

One of Bukem’s most memorable observations came when we talked about the difference in legal writing between her Turkish and U.S. experiences:

“Even though I had the Harvard experience, I was still born, educated, raised, became a lawyer in Turkey. So my go-to was still my Turkish skills… the stuff I drafted would be much heavier, much longer, because otherwise it just seemed so simple to me.”

She told me how hard it was at first to write in a way that felt “simple enough” to be effective in an Anglo-American context. In Turkey, she said, legal writing is often structured to “prove that you are a lawyer”—layered, formal, theoretical. However, in the U.S. and the U.K., especially in transactional practice, simplicity conveys clarity. Precision isn’t about ornamentation; it is about impact.

This closely echoed something Sezgi had shared in her interview. After transitioning from private practice in Istanbul to her in-house role in Boston, she had to learn that being technically right wasn’t always the point. She told me:

“I thought I was doing a great job flagging legal risks. But what mattered more was showing how those risks connected to business goals.”

Both conversations made me rethink the idea that being “professional” means sounding complex. In fact, for cross-border lawyers, the real skill might be learning how to simplify without losing credibility.

 

Bilingual, Bicultural, and Professionally Bicompetent

 

I was especially interested in how Bukem described the shift in her legal voice. She said:

“In Turkey, we use passive voice a lot. Here, if you use passive voice, it’s like, no—this is not literature. Just say whatever you have to say directly.”

It reminded me of something Sezgi mentioned about struggling with the feeling that her accent or linguistic background might betray her as “less than.” However, both professionals, in their own ways, have found that their unique backgrounds, bilingual, bicultural, and bi-systemic, are not liabilities. Rather, it’s their strength. As Bukem put it:

“Sometimes I’m the only one in the room with civil law experience. That helps me bridge different legal cultures—because I can see what others might miss.”

For those preparing to enter law school and legal practice with multilingual and multicultural backgrounds, these reflections are affirming. They are reminders that past parts of the self don’t need to be shed and left behind to become “global” lawyers. Instead, they need to be used intentionally and properly.

 

From Idealism to Realism and Back Again

 

Like many young people entering law, Bukem once imagined a life in foreign service or public international law. But as her career evolved, so did her view of what it meant to be useful.

She reflected:

“You have to do something on the day-to-day. You go to work, you spend long hours, you build things with others—and over time, you realize that staying in one place might let you go deeper, create more value.”

This shift was deeply human. It wasn’t a matter of abandoning her ideals, but of reshaping them in response to reality; She was discovering meaning in that transformation. It also brought to mind a reflection Sezgi shared about the importance of not only knowing your goals but also understanding what it will feel like to live within them.

These reflections don’t tell us to dream smaller; they remind us that dreams evolve through practice.

 

Advice for the Road Ahead

 

When I asked Bukem for advice on what she would offer to students who began their legal education in civil law systems and are now preparing to pursue an LL.M., J.D., or cross-border legal work, her response was clear, practical, and grounded in her own experiences.

She offered five key takeaways:

• Master English. Not just for fluency, but for clarity. “We’re not trying to prove we’re lawyers,” she said. “We’re trying to get a business done.”
• Build a network. “Networking,” she added, “is a shortcut to experience you haven’t lived yourself.” The more conversations you have, the more choices you begin to see.
• Diversify early. Try different internships, explore unfamiliar areas. “Don’t panic if your early steps don’t align perfectly,” she said. “They’re just steps.”
• Work before graduate school. Real-world experience adds depth to academic learning, especially when transitioning between systems.
• Stay curious beyond the law. Economics, politics, even cultural psychology—“anything that shapes your field will shape your practice,” she noted.

 

Bukem’s reflections provide a unique roadmap. While many of those listening to her story may not be adjusting to the common law system as she did, those preparing intentionally to grow within it can see the clearer understanding that cross-cultural legal thinking demands.

And the final note she left me with, about the long view of cultural awareness, applies no matter where one begins:

“Culture really has an impact on everything—especially the legal profession. The more exposure you have, the more valuable and insightful you become. But it’s a muscle you build. It takes time.”

For aspiring lawyers, that is both humbling and motivating. We don’t just study systems—we slowly learn how to carry ourselves across them.

 

Final Reflection

 

I left this interview with the sense that global lawyering isn’t just about learning new systems. It’s about learning to listen differently—to documents, to clients, and to the self.

Bukem’s story, like Sezgi’s, reminded me that practicing law across cultures is not simply about being fluent in legal doctrine. It’s about becoming fluent in human differences. That takes humility, attention, and a willingness to stay in the discomfort of transition—until it becomes a source of strength.

As someone who hasn’t yet entered law school but is preparing to do so with a global perspective, these conversations are helping me refine not only my questions but also the mindset I hope to bring with me. Each interview teaches me that international legal practice isn’t just about geography or language—it’s about how we carry ourselves across systems, how we adapt our voice without losing our values, and how we stay open to perspectives that challenge what we think we already know.

You can find the full recording of my conversation with Bukem linked below. I hope it speaks to you the way it spoke to me—as both a roadmap and a reality check, as well as an invitation to imagine what kind of lawyer you might become.