While the São Paulo section of the Order was drafting the , with quarantine and transparency about events and travel, the Federal Council of the Order supported , with ministers from higher courts and authorities from the three Powers.
The OAB did not provide the social and academic program (speakers and topics) for the meeting.
The commission created by the OAB-SP is made up of former ministers, experts, lawyers and notable jurists: Ellen Gracie, Cezar Peluso, José Eduardo Cardozo, Miguel Reale Jr., Maria Tereza Sadek, Oscar Vilhena, Alessandra Benedito, Patricia Vanzolini and Cezar Britto.
The president of the OAB, Beto Simonetti, states, in the newspaper O Estado de S. Paulo, that these discussions would only be legitimate “if they occurred in a depoliticized way, respecting judicial independence and involving all actors in the Justice system — especially the legal profession”.
“The OAB, which is not a commentator on specific judicial cases nor does it align itself with politicians or ideologies, is prepared to contribute to the discussion on the reform of the Judiciary in a technical and impartial way, giving a voice to the citizenry”, said Simonetti.
In Valor Econômico, journalist Maria Cristina Fernandes discusses OAB Nacional’s resistance to the proposal from the São Paulo section, “which formatted the principles announced by the “code”.
She refers the discussion to the reform that lawyers implemented in 2022, freeing firms from formalizing contracts.
“In addition to protecting offices with ministers’ children, this reform has made it even more difficult to approve regulation of law firms that carry out ‘asset shielding’, a euphemism for structuring money laundering,” wrote the journalist.
The promiscuity that culminated in the Judiciary has its origins in the long tolerance of unethical practices. and Ricardo Lewandowski, it is worth remembering, emptied the CNJ.
The interventions of two immortals from the Brazilian Academy of Letters are worth mentioning.
In 2008, Joaquim Falcão, then a member of the CNJ, at the time chaired by , was a partner in a legal course.
Falcão maintained that magistrates cannot be members of legal courses or any other activity in which they can use their prestige to make a profit. The judge ordered his dismissal from society.
Ten years later, Falcão used the same argument in relation to Gilmar Mendes. “To the extent that you use your authority as a Supreme Court minister to make money, we have an ethical issue,” he said.
In 2023, lawyer José Paulo Cavalcanti Filho in the cases in which he appears as a client of his spouse’s law firm: “The accusation of immorality is the last thing left to do when you have nothing more to say.”
Here are some excerpts from the article.
“In 2018, the Association of Brazilian Magistrates (AMB), believe me gentlemen, requested the declaration of unconstitutionality [do inciso de artigo do Código de Processo Civil que proíbe ministros de julgar casos propostos por suas mulheres]. At the request, it is not known from whom. Under the argument that the rule ‘only serves to embarrass some judges'”.
(…)
“The Chamber of Deputies, the Senate, the Federal Attorney General’s Office, the Attorney General’s Office and the Presidency of the Republic itself said the obvious. That they did not see any unconstitutionality in the rule.”
“Our National OAB, at that moment and as if preached at the Holy Cross, remained predictably mute.”
“Minister Fachin, rapporteur of the case, followed everyone’s understanding. For him, undoubtedly rightly, the rule was created ‘to guarantee a fair and impartial trial’.”
(…)
“Minister Gilmar Mendes rose up and opened a disagreement, arguing that his office ‘wastes time in verifying impediments, failing to assist in the judgment of cases’. Without explaining how this fact means some violation of the Constitution.”
(…)
“Gilmar adds, saying that the rule can ‘tarnish the judge’s reputation’ and ‘diminish not only the person of the judge but the image of the Judiciary’. Maybe it’s the opposite, gentlemen. Ministers judging cases proposed by their wives are what tarnish the reputation of the Judiciary.”
(…)
“Just to remember Alexandre de Moraes, Gilmar, Toffoli and Zanin have women heading offices, among the most expensive in the country, with cases in the Supreme Court.”
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
