Zanin votes so that ministers can judge actions of family lawyers

Minister Cristiano Zanin voted in favor of overturning a rule that prevents judges from judging actions whose parties are clients of the law firm of their spouse, partner or relative up to the third degree. For him, the norm is “disproportionate”, because the judge may not know, for example, whether a certain company that is part of the process is or is not a client of the law firm in which his relative is a partner or employee. By Zanin’s vote, in cases where the relative himself acts as a lawyer, the judge would continue to be prevented from judging.

Since last week, the Federal Supreme Court (STF) has been analyzing an action that points to the unconstitutionality of a rule of the Code of Civil Procedure that prevents judges from judging parties that are assisted by a law firm formed by a spouse or relative.

The Associação dos Magistrados Brasileiros (AMB) claims that it is “impossible” for a judge to know all the cases in which a given company, for example, is attended by a firm where his relative works, especially in cases filed by other firms. . That is, even if the relative’s office does not act on the company’s cause, but works for it in another case, the judge would be prevented. This can occur when the firm has many lawyers and serves large companies, with many cases in court.

In addition to Zanin, ministers Gilmar Mendes, Luiz Fux, Dias Toffoli and Kassio Nunes Marques have already voted to end this type of impediment. They voted against ministers Edson Fachin, Luís Roberto Barroso and Rosa Weber. The votes of Alexandre de Moraes, André Mendonça and Cármen Lúcia are still missing. If only one of them votes to overturn the rule, there will be a majority to end the impediment.

In the action, all institutions consulted opposed the AMB’s request. The Chamber, the Senate, the Advocacy General of the Union, the Presidency of the Republic and the Attorney General of the Republic argued, in summary, that the rule seeks to preserve the impartiality of Justice, avoiding influence peddling in the courts and has nothing of unconstitutional.

First to vote for the end of the impediment, Gilmar Mendes stated, in the vote, that “a large part of the workforce in my office is involved in verifying impediments, failing to assist in the judgment of the causes”. He further stated that a lawyer should not be required to inform a relative judge that his office defends a particular party that he is going to try.

Zanin followed Mendes, arguing that many firms have hundreds of lawyers who work for large companies. As a consequence, a lawyer related to a judge would be prevented from acting in many lawsuits, “in an affront to freedom of initiative and the right to work and subsistence”.

In contact with the report, the minister’s office clarified that, according to his vote, a judge would no longer be impeded in cases where the party is a client of the relative’s office, even if in another process. In cases where the relative himself acts in the action, the judge would remain impeded.

As shown to People’s Gazette, Zanin’s wife, Valeska Martins, is active in at least 14 lawsuits in progress at the STF. Another CPC rule prevents the minister from judging these cases, because he acted in them himself as a lawyer.