Background
Cristiane Aparecida Pinto brought an action seeking moral-damages compensation in São Paulo state court. Because the court identified indications of abusive or predatory litigation, it ordered an amended initial pleading accompanied by an updated, case-specific power of attorney bearing a notarized signature. The measure was intended to establish that Pinto had genuinely retained counsel and authorized the lawsuit.
The requested document was not submitted. The trial court therefore rejected the initial pleading and dismissed the action without reaching the merits. It treated the unratified acts as having been undertaken by counsel at counsel’s own risk and ordered the lawyer to pay the procedural expenses. The São Paulo Court of Justice affirmed, and Pinto filed a special appeal challenging both the demand for a notarized, specific power of attorney and the lawyer’s direct liability.
The Court’s Holding
The Superior Tribunal de Justiça unanimously denied the special appeal. Applying the rule established in Repetitive Theme 1,198, the Fourth Panel held that when there are indications of abusive litigation, a judge may issue a reasoned and proportionate order requiring amendment of the initial pleading to demonstrate standing or a genuine need for judicial relief and the authenticity of the filing, subject to the applicable burden-of-proof rules. The lower court’s demand for an updated, case-specific power of attorney with a notarized signature was permissible in the circumstances described by the record.
The Court also upheld the lawyer’s direct responsibility for procedural expenses under article 104(2) of Brazil’s Code of Civil Procedure. Because the plaintiff did not ratify the acts performed in her name by supplying the ordered power of attorney, those acts were ineffective as to her, and the statutory consequence making the lawyer responsible for expenses and damages applied. The STJ additionally increased the attorney-fee award owed to the opposing party by 10% of the amount previously fixed, subject to statutory limits and any applicable legal-aid protection.
Key Takeaways
- Indications of abusive or predatory litigation may justify a reasoned, proportionate order requiring proof that the claimant genuinely authorized the lawsuit.
- In an appropriate case, that proof may include an updated, case-specific power of attorney bearing a notarized signature.
- If the purported client does not ratify counsel’s acts as ordered, those acts may be ineffective as to the client and counsel may be held directly responsible for procedural expenses under article 104(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Why It Matters
The ruling reinforces Brazilian courts’ authority under Repetitive Theme 1,198 to use targeted verification measures when the record suggests mass-produced, unauthorized, or otherwise abusive filings. Such measures must still be supported by reasons and remain reasonable in light of the particular case.
For practitioners, the decision underscores that failure to establish authentic client authorization can do more than end the case without a merits ruling. When counsel’s acts remain unratified, the lawyer may personally bear procedural expenses under the Code’s specific rule governing acts performed without effective authorization.