It is generally accepted that the official legal school in the Ottoman Empire was the Hanafi legal school and that the Ottomans appointed Hanafi judges to all parts of the Empire in order to ensure legal unity. On the other hand, we know that, after 1265, the Mamluks began to appoint chief judges from the four Sunni legal schools to Cairo, Damascus and other metropolitan cities of their kingdom in Egypt and Syria. These chief judges were independent from each other and reported directly to the Mamluk sultan. This system of "legal pluralism" enabled people to go to the judge of their own school and protected them from subjugation to the rule of other schools. By the time the Ottomans captured Syria and Egypt in 1516-7, the Mamluk legal system had been in place for more than two centuries. In this paper, I discuss the transition from the Mamluk "legal pluralism" to the Ottoman "legal unity" in the Arab lands after 1517 and show the development of Ottoman policy of reconciliation between local and central interests. Contrary to received wisdom, the Ottomans did not impose the Hanafi school in its entirety in every part of the empire. Legal opinions issued by the Ottoman chief jurists show that the legal school of the defendant determined the school identity of the judge who would hear the case. Even in Anatolia and the Balkans, the Hanafi judge was supposed to appoint a substitute judge from other schools to hear a case in which the defendant belonged to other schools. Thus, the Ottomans did not have any difficulty to keep the Mamluk legal system in the Arab lands intact. They appointed Hanafi judges from the center, and entrusted them with appointing substitute judges from other schools and supervising the courtroom. In other words, the judges of other schools maintained their positions, but their status changed. Different from the Mamluk period, when the judges of all schools were appointed directly by the Mamluk sultan, the judges of other schools came under the authority of the Hanafi judge during the Ottoman period. Thus, we can say that the Ottomans allowed the Mamluk "legal pluralism" to continue and local people to undertake the day-to-day functioning of the courtrooms. However, they insisted on appointing the Hanafi judges from the center and expected them to supervise the administration of justice in the region and safeguard imperial interests.