The hierarchy of norms is a crucial principle for maintaining the logical foundation and consistent functioning of a legal system. As it is well-known, legal norms are created by different organs, positioned hierarchically according to their powers. The hierarchy of powers leads to the hierarchy of norms. The order of norms, as a result, resembles a pyramid. Each normative level at the pyramid verifies the lower levels. Naturally, no norm can contradict the norms of a higher level. This simple theory is expected to be the safeguard of a legal system that needs to be holistic and clear from chaos. However, contrary to the theory, legal norms in the eyes legal practitioners –in Turkey, for the sake of this article– are perceived on a different axis from that of high vs. low. This axis is “near vs. distant”. Legal practitioners frequently prioritize the norms that they perceive to be more directly relevant to their practice over those norms that they perceive to be more general and less relevant, even if the latter are at a higher level at the pyramid of the hierarchy of norms. This article defines the dichotomy of near vs. distant norms in the living law, and gives examples of this dichotomy from legal practice in Turkey, with a special focus on the Law of Barristership.