The question transcends the interests of the lawyers and clients
No coração do sistema jurídico brasileiro, o Supremo Tribunal Federal decidiu, por seis votos a cinco, que a questão de como advogados devem ser remunerados em causas de alto valor é suficientemente profunda para merecer uma resposta vinculante para toda a nação. O impasse, desfeito pelo voto do recém-empossado ministro Cristiano Zanin, coloca em tensão dois princípios fundamentais: a equidade como expressão da justiça concreta e a segurança jurídica oferecida por percentuais legais fixos. O que parece uma disputa técnica sobre honorários revela, na verdade, uma pergunta mais antiga — até onde vai o poder do juiz de fazer justiça quando a lei já traçou um caminho?
- Uma divisão exata entre os ministros deixou o STF paralisado por semanas, até que a chegada de Cristiano Zanin ao tribunal desfez o empate e permitiu que a corte avançasse.
- A Fazenda Nacional e a OAB travam um embate que vai além dos autos: de um lado, o interesse do Estado em limitar honorários em grandes causas; do outro, a defesa da autonomia judicial e da remuneração justa dos advogados.
- Uma decisão do STJ de 2022 e uma lei do Congresso aprovada no mesmo ano já haviam restringido o uso da equidade no cálculo de honorários — mas a constitucionalidade dessas restrições nunca foi resolvida.
- Ao reconhecer a repercussão geral, o STF assumiu o compromisso de emitir um precedente vinculante que moldará a advocacia e o acesso à justiça em todo o Brasil por anos.
O Supremo Tribunal Federal encerrou na terça-feira um impasse que havia deixado a corte dividida ao meio: por seis votos a cinco, os ministros reconheceram repercussão geral na discussão sobre o uso da equidade para fixar honorários advocatícios em causas de alto valor. O voto decisivo foi do ministro Cristiano Zanin, recém-empossado, que se juntou a Gilmar Mendes, Alexandre de Moraes, Luís Roberto Barroso, André Mendonça e Dias Toffoli.
A controvérsia tem raízes em uma decisão do Superior Tribunal de Justiça de 2022, que vedou o uso da equidade no arbitramento de honorários quando o proveito econômico da causa é mensurável, determinando a aplicação dos percentuais fixados no Código de Processo Civil. Em seguida, o Congresso transformou esse entendimento em lei, com uma única exceção: causas de benefício econômico muito reduzido ainda poderiam ser arbitradas por equidade, desde que observadas as tabelas da OAB ou o piso de 10%. A Fazenda Nacional recorreu ao STF, argumentando que o STJ havia extrapolado seus limites.
A OAB, representada pelo presidente do Conselho Federal Beto Simonetti e pelo jurista Marcus Vinicius Furtado Coêlho, sustentou que não havia questão constitucional genuína — apenas uma tentativa de rediscutir fatos e a aplicação de lei federal, o que o STF não admite. Cinco ministros, entre eles a presidente Rosa Weber, Fachin, Fux, Nunes Marques e Cármen Lúcia, acolheram esse argumento e votaram contra o reconhecimento da repercussão geral.
A maioria, porém, prevaleceu. Em seu voto, Alexandre de Moraes sublinhou que a questão ultrapassa os interesses das partes e repercute sobre o cenário político, social e jurídico do país. Com o reconhecimento da repercussão geral, o STF está agora obrigado a responder: podem os juízes recorrer à equidade para remunerar advogados em grandes litígios, ou os percentuais legais são sempre obrigatórios? A resposta vinculará todos os tribunais inferiores e definirá os contornos da advocacia brasileira por uma geração.
Brazil's Supreme Court broke a deadlock on Tuesday over a question that sounds technical but carries weight across the entire legal system: whether judges can use their discretion to set attorney fees fairly in cases where the money involved is enormous. The court voted 6-5 that this question matters enough to warrant a binding national ruling—what Brazilian law calls "general repercussion."
The dispute traces back to a decision by the Superior Court of Justice last year that essentially said no. In high-value cases, that court ruled, judges cannot rely on equity—the principle of fairness and reasonableness—to calculate what lawyers should be paid when they win. Instead, they must follow the fixed percentages written into the civil procedure code. The National Treasury's legal office challenged this restriction by appealing to the Supreme Court, arguing the Superior Court had overstepped.
Then, in 2022, Congress passed a law codifying much of what the Superior Court had decided. The new statute prohibited equity-based fee calculations in cases where the amount in dispute could be precisely determined. It did carve out an exception: in cases where the economic benefit was very small, judges could still use equity, but only if they followed the fee guidelines recommended by local bar associations or a 10 percent minimum floor.
When the case reached the Supreme Court's virtual plenary in June, the justices split evenly. The court suspended the vote and rescheduled it, waiting for a new member to break the tie. That member arrived in the form of Cristiano Zanin, who was recently sworn in. His vote joined those of Gilmar Mendes, Alexandre de Moraes, Luís Roberto Barroso, André Mendonça, and Dias Toffoli—six justices who agreed the constitutional question was real and significant.
Alexandre de Moraes, in his written opinion, emphasized that the issue transcends the interests of the lawyers and clients in this particular case. The question of how attorney fees should be calculated in high-stakes litigation, he wrote, has broad repercussions for the political, social, and legal landscape of the country. It is not merely a private dispute.
The bar association, represented by its federal council president Beto Simonetti and constitutional law scholar Marcus Vinicius Furtado Coêlho, had submitted a brief opposing the Treasury's appeal. They argued that the Treasury was simply trying to relitigate facts and evidence—something the Supreme Court's own precedent forbids. There was no genuine constitutional question at stake, they contended, only a disagreement about how an existing federal law should be applied.
Five justices agreed with that position: Rosa Weber, the court's president, along with Luiz Edson Fachin, Luiz Fux, Kassio Nunes Marques, and Cármen Lúcia. They voted that no constitutional issue existed and that the case should not proceed.
But the majority carried the day. By recognizing general repercussion, the Supreme Court has now committed itself to resolving the underlying question: whether judges retain the power to use equity in setting fees for high-value cases, or whether statutory percentages must always apply. Whatever the court decides will bind all lower courts and shape how attorney compensation works across Brazil's legal system for years to come.
Notable Quotes
The theme is controversial and carries broad repercussion and paramount importance for the political, social, and legal landscape— Justice Alexandre de Moraes
The Treasury was attempting to relitigate facts and evidence, which is prohibited by the Supreme Court's own precedent— Bar association representatives Beto Simonetti and Marcus Vinicius Furtado Coêlho
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does it matter whether a judge can use fairness instead of following a fixed percentage when calculating lawyer fees?
Because in a case worth millions, the difference between a statutory percentage and what a judge thinks is fair could mean hundreds of thousands of reais. The question is whether the law trusts judges to exercise that discretion or whether it wants certainty and uniformity.
And the bar association opposed the Treasury's appeal. Why would they do that if they're the ones being paid?
Because the bar association saw the Treasury trying to relitigate a case that had already been decided by a higher court. They believed the Treasury was abusing the appeal process, not raising a genuine constitutional problem. They wanted the Supreme Court to stay out of it.
But the Supreme Court decided to get involved anyway.
Yes. Six justices concluded that how attorney fees are calculated in high-value cases is too important to leave unresolved. It affects not just individual lawyers and clients, but the entire structure of how the legal profession operates.
What happens now?
The Supreme Court will eventually rule on the merits. They'll decide whether judges can use equity or must follow the code's percentages. That decision will become binding law for every court in Brazil.
And if they side with the Treasury?
Then judges lose the discretion they had. Equity goes away in high-value cases. If they side with the bar association, the Superior Court's decision stands and the 2022 law is upheld.