[REVISION HISTORY]

Brazilian Bar Association judicial reform efforts

Updated 4 times since CLSTR started tracking revisions of this situation.

What changed

2026-09-07 10:26 UTC → 2026-09-16 23:21 UTC · added ~~removed~~

The Brazilian Bar Association (OAB) continues to contest legislative changes to the judicial system, specifically regarding the restructuring of Federal Justice fees via Bill 429/2024. While the judiciary and the National Council of Justice (CNJ) argue that fees have been frozen since 2000 and fail to cover expenses, the OAB has formally requested that President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva veto the bill, arguing that increasing costs from 1% to 3% of case values would create financial barriers for middle-income families and retirees. Internal tensions within the judiciary have also emerged regarding administrative compensation. Between 2025 and 2026, various acts created pecuniary advantages for employees in the judicial and legislative branches, such as the ‘Gratificação pelo Exercício de Atividades de Alta Complexidade, Técnica e Administrativa’ (GAACTA) established by an STF resolution. These measures have drawn criticism concerning constitutional limits on public service payments and the distinction between indemnity and salary. In response to broader reform needs, Justice Minister Edson Fachin has proposed a Code of Ethics within the CNJ to standardize conduct across various court levels. However, legal experts have noted that this code would not apply to Supreme Federal Court (STF) ministers, as they are not subordinate to the CNJ. This potential asymmetry has fueled debate, particularly as the STF’s role in national political and legislative decisions grows. ~~This follows previous OAB-SP proposals seeking to implement fixed 12-year mandates~~ Recent discussions have shifted toward addressing hyper-litigation and the perceived abuse of free legal aid. In Maranhão, the State Justice Intelligence Center (Cijema) issued Technical Note No. 10/2025, proposing a ~~formal code~~ system of ~~conduct~~ proportionality. The note recommends that reduced or installment-based fees should not exceed 1% of a claimant’s net income, aiming to ~~regulate monocratic decisions and political manifestations at the STF.~~ move away from an ‘all or nothing’ approach to ensure legal costs continue to fund essential judicial services.

Versions

Only revisions since CLSTR began indexing content versions appear here. Select a version to see what changed compared to the one before it.