The main dispute resolution methods in Brazil are litigation, arbitration, mediation and conciliation.

Litigation before state courts remains the default avenue for resolving commercial disputes. Major cities such as São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro have specialised commercial courts.

Arbitration is well-established and the preferred mechanism for high-value commercial disputes, particularly in M&A transactions, infrastructure projects, energy and corporate governance matters. Brazil is one of the leading arbitration jurisdictions in Latin America.

Mediation has grown substantially in recent years, particularly for civil and business disputes. Conciliation is also widely used, with mandatory conciliation hearings at the outset of civil proceedings. Courts have established dedicated mediation and conciliation centres across the country to facilitate consensual resolution.

Other Methods

Dispute boards have gained traction in infrastructure and construction projects as a way to resolve issues in real time during contract performance. For low-value consumer disputes, online dispute resolution (ODR) platforms offer a fast and accessible alternative to court proceedings.

Virtual Judiciary

Brazil’s court system is almost fully electronic. Cases are filed, managed and decided through digital platforms, with paper filings now rare exceptions. Virtual hearings became standard during the COVID-19 pandemic and have remained a permanent feature of the system. Most procedural acts – including submissions, notifications and even oral arguments – are conducted online, significantly reducing delays associated with physical document handling.

AI Integration

Brazilian courts have rapidly adopted artificial intelligence tools for case management, document classification, admissibility screening and decision drafting.

Binding Precedents

The Code of Civil Procedure strengthened Brazil’s system of binding precedents. Decisions from higher courts – particularly the Supreme Federal Court (STF) and Superior Court of Justice (STJ) – now carry greater weight, and lower courts are generally required to follow established case law. This shift has increased predictability, reduced repetitive litigation and accelerated the resolution of cases involving settled legal questions.

Limitation periods in Brazil vary depending on the nature of the claim.

• General rule – ten years for civil actions where no specific term applies.
• Five years applies to claims involving contractual debts and enforcement of litigation costs. Under the Consumer Protection Code, claims for compensation for damages caused by a product or service accident (product/service liability) are also subject to a five-year limitation period.
• Three years applies to general civil liability claims and for unjust enrichment. This is perhaps the most relevant period for commercial disputes.

Brazil operates a dual-track judicial system under the Federal Constitution, comprising both ordinary and specialised courts.

State Courts

State Courts handle the vast majority of commercial disputes at first instance. Each of Brazil’s 27 states (including the Federal District) has its own court system. First-instance decisions are reviewed by State Courts of Appeal.

Federal Courts

Federal Courts of first instance have jurisdiction over disputes involving federal entities, federal taxes and matters of federal interest. Appeals are heard by the Federal Regional Courts, which are organised into five regions covering the entire country.

Specialised Courts

In addition to the ordinary court system, Brazil has specialised branches for specific subject matters. Labour Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over employment disputes. Electoral Courts handle matters related to elections and political parties. Military Courts deal with crimes committed by members of the armed forces. Finally, Special Civil Courts offer expedited procedures for lower-value claims up to 40 minimum wages, providing a faster and more accessible forum for simpler disputes.

Higher Courts

The STF sits at the apex of the judicial hierarchy, with exclusive jurisdiction over constitutional matters. The STJ is the highest court for non-constitutional federal law, ensuring uniformity in statutory interpretation. Brazil also has the Superior Labour Court (TST) for employment matters and the Superior Military Court (STM) for military justice.

Brazilian law does not impose a general duty to attempt settlement before filing suit. However, certain claims against public entities (eg, social security benefits), consumer claims (eg, health insurance denials) and document disclosure lawsuits require demonstrating prior refusal by the opposing party.

Failure to comply with pre-action requirements may result in dismissal for lack of interest.

Brazilian civil proceedings follow a structured sequence:

• initial petition and service of process;
• mandatory conciliation/mediation hearing;
• defence filing;
• pretrial order defining the issues and evidence to be produced;
• evidentiary phase;
• final arguments; and
• judgment.

After judgment, parties may appeal to the State or Federal Courts of Appeal, and subsequently to the Superior Courts. Once a final judgment is obtained, the prevailing party initiates enforcement proceedings to compel compliance.

Typical Duration

A typical civil lawsuit takes approximately three years to reach a decision on the merits. Appeals to superior courts may add another one to two years. After obtaining a favourable judgment, enforcement proceedings may take five to six years to locate assets and complete the necessary procedural formalities.

Court proceedings are public under the Federal Constitution. However, confidentiality may be decreed in cases involving:

• family law matters (divorce, custody, alimony);
• matters involving minors;
• trade secrets and commercially sensitive information; and
• public interest or social interest requiring protection of privacy.

Brazilian law provides two main types of interim relief, allowing parties to obtain court orders before the final judgment when waiting would cause irreparable harm.

Urgency Relief

This is the most common type of interim relief. The applicant must show a likelihood of success on the merits and a risk that waiting for the final judgment would cause serious harm. Courts may order measures such as freezing the opponent’s assets, requiring a party to stop certain activities, preserving evidence that might otherwise be lost, or temporarily granting the relief sought in the lawsuit.

Evidence-Based Relief

This type of relief does not require showing urgency. Instead, it is available when the claim is so clearly supported by documents or binding precedent that there is little room for dispute. For example, if a party has a signed contract proving the debt and the debtor has no plausible defence, the court may grant relief immediately without waiting for the full trial.

Interim relief is commonly sought in breach of contract cases, shareholder disputes, competition matters, intellectual property conflicts and consumer cases involving health matters (such as the supply of medications). Courts may also grant orders without prior notice to the other party when advance warning would allow the opponent to frustrate the relief – for instance, by hiding assets or destroying evidence.

Brazilian courts may grant different types of remedies depending on what the claimant seeks to achieve.

Declaratory Relief

Courts may issue judgments that clarify the legal situation between parties (eg, declaring whether a contract is valid, whether a party has a certain right, or whether an obligation exists). These judgments do not order any action but provide legal certainty.

Monetary Judgments

The most common remedy in commercial disputes. Courts order the losing party to pay damages, debts or other monetary amounts.

Specific Performance

Courts may order a party to do (or stop doing) something specific, rather than simply paying damages. To encourage compliance, courts commonly impose daily penalty fines that accumulate until the order is obeyed.

Brazilian law follows the principle of full compensation, meaning that the injured party should be restored to the position they would have been in had the harm not occurred.

Types of Damages

Courts may award compensation for actual losses (money already spent or assets lost) and lost profits (gains that the party would have earned but for the breach). In addition, courts may award moral damages for non-financial harm such as reputational damage, distress or humiliation.

No Punitive Damages

Brazil does not recognise punitive damages as a separate category. However, contractual penalty clauses are permitted and courts may reduce penalties that are deemed excessive.

Proving Damages

The claimant bears the burden of proving both the existence and the amount of damages suffered. In complex cases, courts commonly appoint neutral expert accountants to assess the value. For moral damages, the amount is determined at the judge’s discretion, guided by proportionality principles.

Arbitration is highly prevalent in Brazil and the dominant mechanism for complex, high-value commercial disputes. Brazil ranks among the leading arbitration jurisdictions in Latin America.

Arbitration is commonly used in M&A, shareholders’ agreements, joint ventures, corporate governance, energy, oil and gas, infrastructure, construction, and finance disputes. Public-private partnerships and concession disputes may also be arbitrated.

Not all disputes can be resolved through arbitration in Brazil. The Arbitration Act limits arbitration to disputes involving patrimonial rights that the parties are free to dispose of. This includes most commercial and contractual matters.

Certain categories of disputes cannot be submitted to arbitration, such as:

• family law matters (divorce, custody, non-waivable succession rights);
• criminal matters;
• tax disputes (with limited exceptions for public entities); and
• strictly personal rights.

Arbitration offers several advantages in Brazil.

• Finality – arbitral awards are final and binding, with the same legal effect as court judgments. No court ratification is required for domestic awards.
• Speed – arbitration proceedings are significantly faster than litigation.
• Flexibility – parties have significant control over the process. They may choose specialised arbitrators with relevant expertise, select the applicable procedural rules and substantive law, and determine the language and seat of arbitration.
• Confidentiality – unlike court proceedings, which are generally public, arbitration can be kept confidential. Most institutional rules and arbitration agreements include confidentiality provisions.
• Enforceability – Brazil is a signatory to the New York Convention, providing a well-established framework for recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards worldwide.
• Pro-arbitration courts – Brazilian courts are generally supportive of arbitration. They uphold arbitration agreements and limit annulment of awards to narrow procedural grounds.
• Neutrality – arbitration offers a neutral forum, free from potential local court biases. This is particularly valued in cross-border disputes where parties may prefer not to litigate in each other’s home courts.

Arbitration also presents certain disadvantages.

• Cost – arbitration is generally more expensive than court litigation due to institutional fees, arbitrators’ fees and legal representation costs. This may limit access for small and medium-sized enterprises.
• Limited review – arbitral awards are not subject to appeal on the merits, which may disadvantage parties affected by legal or factual errors.
• Interim relief – although arbitral tribunals may grant interim measures, their enforcement may require court assistance, potentially causing delays.
• Multi-party complexity – multi-party and multi-contract disputes can raise procedural challenges, particularly where not all parties are bound by the same arbitration agreement.

The most prominent arbitral institutions in Brazil include the following.

• CAM-CCBC (Center for Arbitration and Mediation of the Brazil-Canada Chamber of Commerce) – the largest and most established domestic arbitral institution, widely used in complex commercial disputes.
• CAM-B3 (Market Arbitration Chamber) – has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising from B3 stock exchange listing agreements and is a key forum for capital markets arbitration.
• ICC Brazil (International Chamber of Commerce) – administers a significant number of both domestic and international arbitrations involving Brazilian parties.
• CBMA (Brazilian Center for Mediation and Arbitration – Rio de Janeiro) – has experienced steady growth, particularly in energy and infrastructure disputes.
• AMCHAM Arbitration Center (American Chamber of Commerce) – commonly used in disputes involving US and international companies.
• FGV Chamber of Mediation and Arbitration – affiliated with Getulio Vargas Foundation, with a strong presence in high-level commercial disputes.
• CAM-CIESP/FIESP – the arbitration chamber linked to the São Paulo Federation of Industries, frequently used in industrial and commercial matters.

In international arbitrations with a Brazilian nexus, foreign institutions such as the ICC (Paris), LCIA and SIAC are also commonly selected.

The duration of arbitral proceedings in Brazil varies depending on factors such as complexity, number of parties, the chosen institution and the procedural timetable. Arbitrations without expert evidence last, on average, around 21 months, while proceedings involving expert evidence average approximately 49 months.

Expedited procedures can significantly shorten this timeframe, with awards often rendered within six to nine months.

The main statute governing arbitration in Brazil is the Brazilian Arbitration Act (Law No 9,307/1996), inspired by the UNCITRAL Model Law and applicable to both domestic and international arbitration. The Act was substantially amended by Law No 13,129/2015, which expressly allowed arbitration involving the public administration, introduced tribunal-granted interim measures, partial awards and corporate arbitration clauses.

Brazil is a party to the New York Convention, the Panama Convention and the Mercosur Agreement on International Commercial Arbitration. The Civil Procedure Code provides supplementary rules on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.

Notably, Brazil is not a signatory to the ICSID Convention and does not participate in the traditional investment arbitration framework.

Brazilian courts play an important supportive role in arbitration.

• Enforcement of arbitration agreements – courts stay judicial proceedings and refer parties to arbitration when a valid arbitration clause exists and may compel arbitration through specific performance.
• Interim relief – courts may grant interim and urgent reliefs before the arbitral tribunal is constituted and assist with enforcement of tribunal-ordered measures after constitution.
• Award enforcement – courts have the power to enforce arbitral awards as they are qualified as judicial enforcement titles.
• Foreign award recognition – the STJ has exclusive jurisdiction to recognise and enforce foreign arbitral awards.

Brazilian courts intervene in arbitration only in limited and well-defined circumstances, reflecting the pro-arbitration policy of the legal framework. Importantly, courts do not review the merits of arbitral awards.

The main form of judicial intervention is the annulment action, which must be brought within 90 days of notification of the award. The grounds for annulment are strictly limited to procedural irregularities, including:

• a null and void arbitration agreement;
• an award rendered by a disqualified arbitrator;
• failure to comply with formal requirements of the award;
• an award that exceeds the scope of the arbitration agreement;
• corruption or fraud;
• an award rendered after the deadline; and
• a violation of due process or the equal treatment of the parties.

Foreign Awards

For foreign arbitral awards, the STJ has jurisdiction to grant or refuse recognition based on the grounds set forth in the New York Convention.

Arbitral tribunals have broad authority to grant relief. They may issue declaratory, constitutive and condemnatory awards, including monetary damages, specific performance, contract termination and contractual penalties. The issuance of partial awards is expressly permitted.

Interim and Emergency Relief

Arbitral tribunals may grant interim and urgent measures, such as injunctions and precautionary relief.

• Before constitution of the tribunal, parties may seek interim measures from state courts. Once the tribunal is constituted, it may confirm, modify or revoke those measures.
• After constitution, the tribunal has primary jurisdiction to grant interim relief, with state courts assisting in enforcement when necessary (eg, through judicial cooperation mechanisms).

No Restrictions

There are no express statutory restrictions on the types of interim relief a tribunal may grant, provided that the measures are necessary, proportionate, within the scope of the arbitration agreement and concern disposable rights. Coercive enforcement, such as contempt sanctions, may require judicial assistance.

Brazil offers several ADR methods beyond arbitration.

• Mediation – a neutral mediator helps parties reach their own solution. The mediator facilitates dialogue but does not propose outcomes. Available through courts or private providers.
• Conciliation – similar to mediation, but the conciliator takes a more active role and may suggest solutions. Commonly used in court proceedings and consumer disputes.
• Dispute boards – used primarily in construction and infrastructure projects to resolve issues in real time during contract performance.
• Online dispute resolution (ODR) – used for low-value consumer disputes.

Once a lawsuit is filed, Brazilian courts must schedule a mandatory conciliation or mediation hearing before the defence is submitted. This hearing can only be waived if both parties expressly decline.

Non-attendance without justification may result in a fine of up to 2% of the dispute value. Where parties have contractually agreed to mediation as a condition precedent to arbitration, failure to comply may result in the claim being considered premature.

Engaging in ADR does not affect a party’s right to litigate or arbitrate. The mandatory court hearing is a procedural step, not a precondition to filing suit.

If ADR results in settlement, the agreement becomes an enforceable title through courts.

ADR in Brazil may take place at different stages of the dispute. Parties often attempt to negotiate voluntarily before formal proceedings are initiated. ADR may also occur after a judgment has been rendered. Given that enforcement proceedings in Brazil can be lengthy and costly, it is not uncommon for the parties – particularly the losing party – to negotiate a settlement at this stage in order to avoid prolonged and uncertain enforcement measures.

As to limitation periods, extrajudicial mediation suspends the running of the statute of limitations until its conclusion. This mechanism protects parties who seek an amicable resolution before initiating litigation or arbitration, ensuring that settlement efforts do not prejudice their rights.

Mediation is confidential by law. As a general rule, information disclosed during mediation cannot be used as evidence in court or arbitration, and mediators cannot be called as witnesses.

Court conciliation hearings are also confidential, and settlement discussions are conducted privately.

For private mediation, costs are typically shared equally between parties unless otherwise agreed. Generally, each party bears its own legal representation costs. If settlement is reached, cost allocation is typically addressed in the settlement agreement, depending on its terms.

Court-conducted conciliation and mediation through judicial centres are generally free of charge, making ADR accessible even for lower-value disputes.

Brazilian courts strongly support ADR as a means of addressing the country’s significant judicial backlog. Judges actively encourage settlement at the initial procedural hearings, and it is also common for appellate courts to ask the parties whether they wish to explore a settlement before an appeal is decided.

Courts readily homologate settlement agreements, granting them the same enforceability as court judgments.

Legal fees in Brazil consist of two components: contractual fees agreed between client and lawyer, and court-awarded fees payable by the losing party.

Contractual Fees

Clients and lawyers are free to negotiate fee arrangements. Common structures include fixed retainers, hourly rates, success fees or combinations thereof. While fees are freely agreed, they must comply with ethical standards set by the Brazilian Bar Association (OAB), including reasonableness and transparency. The OAB publishes minimum fee schedules at the state level, which are binding for ethical purposes and aim to prevent underpricing.

Court-Awarded Fees

Brazil follows a loser-pays system. The losing party must pay attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party. Under the Civil Procedure Code, these fees are set between 10% and 20% of the claim value, economic benefit or updated cause value. The fees are owed directly to the winning party’s lawyers – not to the client – as a vested right under Brazilian law.

Third-party litigation funding is available and growing in Brazil, though not specifically regulated by statute.

Contingency fee arrangements are available in Brazil and are regulated by the Brazilian Bar Association’s Code of Ethics and Discipline. These arrangements are particularly common in labour, consumer, personal injury and civil rights cases.

Under these arrangements, the lawyer receives a percentage of the recovery with no upfront payment from the client. The main rules governing contingency fees include: the fee must be agreed in writing; the percentage cannot be manifestly excessive or disproportionate to the work performed; the lawyer cannot acquire rights over the subject matter of the dispute; and the arrangement must not place the client at a disadvantage. The Bar Association may review fee arrangements that appear abusive or that compromise the client’s interests.

In commercial litigation and arbitration, pure contingency fees are less common. Instead, hybrid arrangements combining reduced retainers with success fees are prevalent, allowing for greater flexibility while maintaining ethical compliance.

Insurance coverage is available in Brazil for court litigation, arbitration and ADR. Coverage depends primarily on the terms agreed in the insurance policy.

In litigation, the losing party pays court costs and attorneys’ fees (10-20% of the judgment value) to the prevailing party.

Cost allocation depends primarily on the outcome of the case and on who is the prevailing party. The losing party pays costs and attorneys’ fees to the winning party.

The percentage of success or failure in the case is also taken into consideration. If a party wins some claims but loses others, costs may be apportioned according to the degree of success achieved by each party.

If both parties prevail and lose on different aspects of the dispute, costs are typically divided between them proportionally, reflecting the extent to which each party succeeded in the litigation.

The types of interim relief available from the courts for ADR proceedings are the same as those applicable to litigation cases, as described in 2.6 Interim Relief.

Brazilian courts routinely grant interim relief in support of arbitration and other forms of ADR. Before an arbitral tribunal is constituted, parties may seek interim measures directly from state courts to preserve rights or prevent irreparable harm.

Once the arbitral tribunal is constituted, it assumes primary jurisdiction over interim relief. Courts then continue to play a supportive role, assisting mainly with the enforcement of tribunal-ordered measures when coercive powers are required.

In the context of mediation and other ADR mechanisms, courts may also grant interim relief to safeguard the parties’ rights while negotiations are ongoing.

Interim relief may be sought at various stages.

• Before filing suit – relief may be sought as a standalone measure. If granted, the applicant must file the main action or the measure lapses automatically.
• At proceedings’ outset – most applications are filed with or shortly after the initial petition. Courts typically rule on urgent requests within 48–72 hours.

Brazilian law does not have a general security for costs requirement. However, any plaintiff who resides outside Brazil must provide security for the defendant’s costs and fees, unless they own real estate in Brazil sufficient to cover such costs.

This requirement is waived when there is an applicable international treaty, in enforcement proceedings or in counterclaims.

Additionally, courts may require security or order asset freezes in other situations. If there is evidence of asset dissipation risk, the defendant may request protective measures to ensure future costs recovery. Courts may also require the plaintiff to post security as a condition for granting interim relief, particularly injunctions that may cause significant harm to the defendant if later reversed.

Interim injunctions are available for parties in Brazil. They are court orders requiring a party to do something (mandatory injunctions) or to refrain from doing something (prohibitory injunctions). The applicant must demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits and a risk of serious or irreversible harm if the order is not granted.

Common cases where interim injunctions are sought include: stopping the infringement of intellectual property rights, stopping defamatory publications or unfair competition practices, preventing the transfer or disposal of disputed assets and requiring a party to continue supplying goods or services under an existing contract.

Courts may render early judgment on the merits when: (i) the dispute involves only legal questions with no disputed facts; or (ii) all evidence is documentary and no further proof is needed. Early judgment is regularly used for straightforward claims involving undisputed payment obligations, documented contract breaches or matters following binding precedent.

The main mechanisms are the following.

• Public civil action – the most widely used collective mechanism in Brazil. It covers a broad range of public interest matters, including environmental protection, consumer rights, cultural heritage, urban planning and antitrust violations.
• Citizen lawsuit – a constitutional mechanism allowing any Brazilian citizen to challenge government acts that harm public assets, administrative morality, the environment or cultural heritage. No legal representation is required, and the plaintiff is exempt from court costs unless acting in bad faith.
• Collective writ of mandamus – filed by political parties, unions or professional associations to protect collective rights against unlawful acts by public authorities. It provides a faster remedy than ordinary collective actions.

Brazilian class actions follow a representative model: affected individuals do not file or join the action themselves. Instead, authorised entities act on behalf of all class members.

Standing is limited to:

• the Public Prosecutor’s office;
• the Public Defender’s office;
• public entities at the federal, state and municipal levels;
• civil associations in existence for at least one year and with purposes directly related to the claim (the one-year requirement may be waived in cases of clear social interest);
• public regulatory agencies and foundations (eg, consumer protection agencies); and
• trade unions and professional associations (eg, labour unions representing workers in a specific industry, bar associations).

For popular actions, any Brazilian citizen has individual standing to challenge unlawful government acts that harm public assets.

Brazilian collective actions allow for broad relief, including injunctive orders to stop unlawful conduct, monetary compensation or restitution, environmental remediation and declaratory relief (such as invalidation of abusive contractual clauses).

Damages calculation depends on the type of collective right involved:

• diffuse rights (indeterminate victims) – compensation is directed to public via a collective fund;
• collective rights stricto sensu (defined but non identifiable group) – damages follow the same collective fund approach; and
• homogeneous individual rights (identifiable individuals with common claims) – the collective judgment establishes liability and each individual later pursues a simplified proceeding to prove and recover their specific loss (the comparable tool is the American Class Action for Damages).

Brazil follows the principle of full compensation, covering actual losses and lost profits, and allows moral damages assessed on proportionality grounds.

Collective actions seeking to protect diffuse or collective rights are generally not compatible with arbitration in Brazil. The fundamental reason lies in the nature of the rights involved: arbitration requires that parties have the power to freely dispose of the rights in dispute, whereas diffuse rights belong to an indeterminate group of people and cannot be waived or transacted by any individual or entity.

Consumer claims involving large numbers of individuals with similar grievances also generally remain outside arbitration. Consumer protection legislation treats the relationship between consumers and suppliers as inherently unequal, and arbitration clauses in consumer contracts are subject to strict scrutiny. However, there is no specific legal prohibition on collective arbitration in Brazil, and it is theoretically permitted for certain types of disputes. Notable cases have emerged involving investor harm claims, where collective arbitration mechanisms were discussed as a potential avenue for resolving mass investor disputes.

Repetitive Claims Mechanism

Brazil has developed a robust system for managing mass litigation through binding precedent mechanisms. The most significant trend is the increased use of the Incident of Resolution of Repetitive Demands and repetitive appeal procedures in the Superior Courts. These mechanisms allow courts to consolidate thousands of individual cases involving the same legal question into a single binding ruling. It has been widely used in banking, insurance and consumer disputes.

Digital and Data Protection Claims

Consumer collective actions against technology companies, banks and telecommunications providers have increased substantially, particularly regarding data breaches, algorithmic decision-making and digital platform liability. With the Brazilian data protection law in force, collective actions based on data protection violations are expected to become more frequent.

Brazil does not have broad discovery comparable to common law jurisdictions. There is no general obligation to disclose documents that may be relevant to the dispute.

General Approach

Parties must submit all documentary evidence they intend to rely upon together with their initial pleadings. The claimant attaches documents to the initial petition, and the defendant does the same with the defence. After these initial submissions, new documents may only be introduced under limited circumstances, such as when responding to arguments raised by the opposing party.

Requesting Documents from the Opposing Party

Although there is no automatic disclosure duty, a party may request specific documents from the opposing party or from third parties. The requesting party must identify the document with reasonable precision and explain why it is relevant to the dispute. The court will not accept a refusal to produce a document when the party has a legal obligation to disclose it; the party referred to the document during the proceedings to support its own case; or the document is common to both parties.

If a party refuses to produce a court-ordered document without valid justification, the court may presume that the facts the requesting party intended to prove through that document are true.

Brazil does not have a privilege regime equivalent to common law systems, but it provides strong protections for confidential communications based on statutory duties of professional secrecy.

Lawyer-Client Communications

Under the Statute of the Brazilian Bar, all communications related to legal advice and representation – including opinions, strategy and materials prepared in connection with actual or anticipated litigation – are confidential. In general, such information cannot be compelled by court order, and lawyers may refuse to testify about it.

Other Professionals

Similar confidentiality obligations apply to other professions, including doctors and healthcare professionals, accountants, psychologists and therapists, journalists (with respect to sources) and members of the clergy. These protections may justify refusal to disclose information, although courts may exceptionally order disclosure where there is a compelling and specific need.

Waiver of Privilege

Privilege may be waived if the holder voluntarily discloses the information, consents to its disclosure, or relies on the confidential material to support claims or defences. Assertions of confidentiality must be specific and justified; broad or unsupported claims are generally not upheld.

Brazilian law allows parties to withhold evidence on confidentiality grounds in limited circumstances. A party may be excused from producing a document if disclosure would cause serious harm to the party or close relatives, or if it contains trade secrets or professional confidential information. When confidentiality is claimed, courts balance the need for disclosure against the harm it may cause. Rather than allowing complete withholding, courts often order restricted access: the document is disclosed to the court and opposing counsel under a confidentiality undertaking, but not made public.

Confidentiality protection may be overridden when the document is essential to the case and cannot be replaced by other evidence, when the party claiming confidentiality relies on the same document for its own case, or when the court determines that the interests of justice outweigh confidentiality concerns.

In court proceedings, witnesses testify orally at a hearing before the judge, which occurs after the parties have submitted their initial pleadings and the judge has determined that oral evidence is necessary.

Brazil does not have a pre-trial deposition procedure comparable to the US model. There is no discovery phase allowing parties to depose witnesses before trial.

Written witness statements are not standard practice in Brazilian litigation. Parties identify the witnesses they intend to call, but statements or affidavits submitted in advance carry little evidentiary weight. As a rule, the judge assesses credibility based on live testimony, particularly because the judge may directly question witnesses and exercise control over the relevance and scope of cross-examination.

Examination Procedure

At the hearing, witnesses are examined by the lawyers for all parties and by the judge. The sequence typically begins with questions from the party that called the witness, followed by questions from opposing counsel. The judge may intervene at any time to ask clarifying questions or to control the scope of examination.

Expert evidence is widely used in Brazilian proceedings, when disputed facts require specialised technical or scientific knowledge that falls outside the judge’s expertise.

The judge appoints a neutral expert from an approved registry. The court-appointed expert must act with independence and impartiality. Each party may then appoint a technical assistant to review the expert’s methodology, challenge findings and submit a separate opinion. While the court expert’s report carries significant weight, the judge is not bound by its conclusions and may rely on other evidence.

Foreign judgments are not directly enforceable in Brazil. They must first be recognised by the STJ. Its review is formal and procedural only – the merits of the case are not reconsidered. Once recognised, enforcement follows the standard judgment enforcement procedure before first instance courts.

Requirements for Recognition

The STJ will homologate a foreign judgment provided it meets the following conditions:

• it is a final judgment from a competent foreign court;
• the parties were duly cited (or the judgment was rendered by default under conditions accepted by Brazilian law);
• the judgment has been authenticated by the Brazilian Consulate and officially translated into Portuguese; and
• it does not violate Brazilian national sovereignty, public order, or good morals (public order).

International Treaties

The recognition of a foreign judgment may be waived or facilitated when there is an international treaty in force between Brazil and the foreign country.

Domestic Awards

Domestic arbitral awards have the same legal effect as court judgments under the Brazilian Arbitration Act (Law No 9,307/1996). They constitute a judicial enforcement title and do not require recognition or homologation. Enforcement proceeds directly before state courts under the Code of Civil Procedure, with a 15‑day period for voluntary compliance, after which enforcement measures may be imposed.

Foreign Arbitral Awards

These awards must be recognised (homologated) by the STJ before enforcement in Brazil, pursuant to the Arbitration Act and the New York Convention. The STJ reviews only formal and public-policy requirements, not the merits of the award.

Please see 2.4 Stages of Court Proceedings.

A typical civil lawsuit takes approximately three years to reach a final decision on the merits. Appeals to superior courts may add another one to tow years. After obtaining a favourable judgment, enforcement proceedings may take an average of five to six years to locate assets and complete the necessary procedural formalities.

Foreign Judgments

A party may oppose STJ homologation of a foreign judgment based on the following grounds:

• lack of authenticity or proper translation of documents;
• the judgment is not final and binding in its country of origin;
• Brazilian courts had exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter;
• the defendant was not properly served or given an opportunity to defend; and
• the judgment violates Brazilian sovereignty, public order or good morals.

Domestic Arbitral Awards

Domestic awards may be challenged under Article 32 of the Arbitration Act. The challenge must be filed within 90 days of receiving the award. Grounds include:

• nullity of the arbitration agreement or the award itself;
• the award addresses matters beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement;
• the arbitral procedure violated mandatory legal rules or the agreed procedural rules;
• the arbitrator failed to disclose a conflict of interest; or
• the award lacks a proper statement of reasons.

Brazil does not currently have specific legislation regulating the use of artificial intelligence in dispute resolution.

The National Council of Justice (CNJ) is the administrative body responsible for overseeing and regulating the Brazilian judiciary. The CNJ has issued two main instruments addressing AI in the judicial context.

• Resolution No 332/2020 – establishes ethical guidelines for the use of AI by courts, including principles of transparency, non-discrimination and human oversight. It requires that AI tools used in judicial decision-making be explainable and subject to human review.
• Resolution No. 615/2025 – updates and expands the framework, addressing emerging AI technologies and reinforcing requirements for algorithmic transparency and accountability in court systems.

The resolutions function more as best-practice recommendations than as binding legal rules, but courts are expected to follow them as part of their administrative duties.

Brazil has experienced a significant impact of artificial intelligence in the field of dispute resolution. This impact manifests itself on two main fronts: the growing use of AI tools by lawyers and law firms, and the increasingly broad adoption of these technologies by the judiciary itself.

On the side of legal professionals, the use of artificial intelligence has grown substantially in recent years. Lawyers have turned to AI-based tools for tasks ranging from case law research and analysis of large volumes of documents to drafting and formulating litigation strategies. This adoption has enabled more efficient and data-driven practice, changing the dynamics of litigation in the country.

Within the courts, the transformation is equally significant.

The Brazilian judiciary has consistently invested in the digitisation of proceedings and the incorporation of artificial intelligence solutions to address one of its greatest challenges: the extraordinary volume of judicial demands. Superior courts, such as the STF and the STJ, use AI systems to classify cases and identify repetitive claims, enabling faster and more uniform treatment of issues that recur in thousands of actions. Furthermore, AI tools are already employed for drafting initial versions of judicial decisions, always subject to review and approval by the responsible judges. The result is a dispute resolution system that is progressively becoming more organised, agile and capable of absorbing the high workload that characterises Brazilian litigation.

Looking to the future, the trend is toward a deeper integration between artificial intelligence and judicial activity. In a brief retrospective, the Brazilian judiciary has already followed a significant path: it moved from the digitisation of case files and the implementation of electronic proceedings to the adoption of automated triage systems, AI-based subject-matter classification, and assistance in drafting decisions in less complex cases. This trajectory points to a scenario in which the courts will become even more efficient at filtering and adjudicating standardised cases, where the facts and legal issues follow recognisable patterns.

This evolution, however, brings with it an important challenge. As artificial intelligence becomes established as a tool for handling repetitive and standardised cases, the question arises as to how the system will deal with complex litigation – those cases that, by their very nature, do not fit into predefined models. Disputes involving intricate factual issues, innovative legal theories, or multiple layers of regulatory complexity require an analysis that goes beyond what automated patterns are able to capture. The challenge facing both lawyers and the courts is to ensure that the increased standardisation enabled by AI does not compromise the quality of analysis and adjudication in cases that demand a more individualised and in-depth examination. Finding this balance will likely be one of the central issues in the evolution of the Brazilian justice system in the coming years.