Background
A law firm performed legal services for Banco Bradesco under a contract executed in 2016 and later amended. The agreement tied additional compensation to procedural milestones and the economic benefit obtained. Bradesco unilaterally terminated the relationship in November 2020, before the contractual conditions for success-based payment had occurred. The firm had worked on two proceedings for several years and sought judicial assessment of compensation for the services completed before termination.
The lower courts permitted the fee-assessment action and fixed compensation at R$8,000, considering the work performed, the duration and complexity of the matters, the place of performance, professional diligence, proportionality, and partial payments already made. Bradesco challenged that result, arguing that the courts had overlooked material documents and arguments, had mistakenly characterized the agreement, and could not invoke Article 22 of Brazil’s Advocacy Act because the contract contained no gap.
After the reporting justice denied relief on Bradesco’s special-appeal challenge, the bank filed an internal appeal before the Superior Tribunal de Justiça’s Fourth Panel. It sought reconsideration or reversal of that ruling.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Panel unanimously denied Bradesco’s internal appeal. It found no violation of Articles 489 or 1,022 of the Code of Civil Procedure because the state court had addressed every issue necessary to resolve the dispute and had supplied coherent and sufficient reasons. A court does not commit an omission merely by rejecting a party’s theory or declining to discuss each argument individually.
The STJ also reaffirmed that when a client terminates an attorney-fee agreement without a specific justification before success-based compensation becomes payable, a court may assess the fees owed for legal services actually performed. That assessment prevents the client from retaining the benefit of counsel’s work without appropriate compensation.
Because the state court’s decision accorded with settled STJ precedent, STJ Precedent Statement 83 barred the special appeal. The Panel therefore left undisturbed the ruling permitting judicial assessment and the lower court’s R$8,000 award.
Key Takeaways
- A client’s unjustified, premature termination of a success-fee agreement may support immediate judicial assessment of compensation for work already performed.
- Milestone advances, contractual success fees, and court-awarded prevailing-party fees are distinct forms of compensation.
- A reasoned decision need not answer every argument separately, and a special appeal is barred when the challenged ruling follows settled STJ precedent.
Why It Matters
The decision protects lawyers from losing compensation when a client ends a success-based engagement before the contractual payment event, while limiting recovery to an equitable assessment of the services actually rendered rather than automatically awarding the full contingent amount.
For clients and counsel drafting Brazilian legal-services agreements, the ruling underscores the importance of specifying the financial consequences of early termination and maintaining records of completed work, milestone payments, and any justification for ending the engagement.