{"id":5970,"date":"2026-04-06T23:24:06","date_gmt":"2026-04-07T02:24:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/deqlaw.com.br\/?page_id=5970"},"modified":"2026-04-27T04:39:33","modified_gmt":"2026-04-27T07:39:33","slug":"litigating-in-brazil","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.deqlaw.com.br\/en\/litigating-in-brazil\/","title":{"rendered":"Litigating in Brazil"},"content":{"rendered":"<section data-bb-version=\"5.7.1\" id=\"bt_bb_section69f4e45602823\" class=\"bt_bb_section bt_bb_layout_boxed_1200\"  data-bt-override-class=\"null\"><div class=\"bt_bb_port\"><div class=\"bt_bb_cell\"><div class=\"bt_bb_cell_inner\"><div class=\"bt_bb_row \"  data-bt-override-class=\"{}\"><div class=\"bt_bb_row_holder\" ><div data-bb-version=\"5.7.1\"  class=\"bt_bb_column col-xl-12 col-xs-12 col-sm-12 col-md-12 col-lg-12 bt_bb_align_left bt_bb_padding_normal\"  data-width=\"12\" data-bt-override-class=\"{}\"><div class=\"bt_bb_column_content bt_bb_vertical_align_top bt_bb_color_scheme_\"><div class=\"bt_bb_column_content_inner\"><div class=\"bt_bb_raw_content\"><link href=\"https:\/\/fonts.googleapis.com\/css2?family=Lato:ital,wght@0,100;0,300;0,400;0,700;0,900;1,100;1,300;1,400&display=swap\" rel=\"stylesheet\" \/>\n<style>\n  .dq-page-wrap {\n    margin-left:  calc(-50vw + 50%);\n    margin-right: calc(-50vw + 50%);\n    width: 100vw;\n    max-width: 100vw;\n    overflow-x: hidden;\n  }\n  :root {\n    --navy:       #0d1b2a;\n    --navy-mid:   #1a2e45;\n    --gold:       #cb8569;\n    --gold-light: #e09a7e;\n    --cream:      #f8f5f0;\n    --warm-white: #fdfcfa;\n    --text-dark:  #1a1a1a;\n    --text-mid:   #4a4a4a;\n    --text-light: #7a7a7a;\n    --border:     #e0d8cc;\n    --red-soft:   #7a2020;\n    --amber:      #b86a00;\n  }\n  *, *::before, *::after { box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0; padding: 0; }\n  html { scroll-behavior: smooth; }\n  body { font-family: 'Lato', sans-serif; background: var(--warm-white); color: var(--text-dark); line-height: 1.7; font-weight: 400; }\n\n  \/* HERO *\/\n  .hero { background: var(--navy); color: white; padding: 100px 40px 90px; position: relative; overflow: hidden; }\n  .hero::after { content: ''; position: absolute; bottom: 0; left: 0; right: 0; height: 3px; background: linear-gradient(90deg, transparent, var(--gold), transparent); }\n  .hero-inner { max-width: 860px; margin: 0 auto; position: relative; z-index: 1; }\n  .hero-label { font-size: 12px; letter-spacing: 3px; text-transform: uppercase; color: var(--gold-light); margin-bottom: 28px; }\n  .hero h1 { font-size: clamp(34px, 5vw, 56px); font-weight: 300; line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 28px; }\n  .hero h1 em { font-style: italic; color: var(--gold-light); }\n  .hero-sub { font-size: 21px; color: rgba(255,255,255,0.72); max-width: 640px; line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 44px; font-weight: 300; }\n  .btn-primary { display: inline-block; background: var(--gold) !important; color: #ffffff !important; text-decoration: none; padding: 15px 38px; font-size: 14px; font-weight: 500; letter-spacing: 1.5px; text-transform: uppercase; transition: background 0.3s; }\n  .btn-primary:hover { background: var(--gold-light) !important; color: #ffffff !important; }\n\n  \/* QUICK READ *\/\n  .quickread { background: var(--navy-mid); padding: 40px; }\n  .quickread-inner { max-width: 860px; margin: 0 auto; display: grid; grid-template-columns: repeat(2, 1fr); gap: 16px; }\n  .quickread-title { grid-column: 1 \/ -1; font-size: 16px; text-transform: uppercase; letter-spacing: 3px; color: var(--gold); margin-bottom: 8px; }\n  .qr-item { display: flex; gap: 12px; align-items: flex-start; }\n  .qr-dot { width: 8px; height: 8px; border-radius: 50%; background: var(--gold); flex-shrink: 0; margin-top: 8px; }\n  .qr-item p { font-size: 19px; color: rgba(255,255,255,0.75); line-height: 1.7; }\n  .qr-item p strong { color: white; }\n\n  \/* INTRO *\/\n  .intro-strip { background: var(--cream); padding: 70px 40px; border-bottom: 1px solid var(--border); }\n  .intro-inner { max-width: 860px; margin: 0 auto; display: grid; grid-template-columns: 1fr 1fr; gap: 60px; }\n  .intro-inner h2 { font-size: 34px; font-weight: 300; color: var(--navy); grid-column: 1 \/ -1; line-height: 1.25; margin-bottom: -20px; }\n  .intro-col p { font-size: 17px; color: var(--text-mid); line-height: 1.85; }\n  .intro-col p + p { margin-top: 16px; }\n  .intro-col a { color: var(--gold); text-decoration: none; }\n\n  \/* WARNING BOX *\/\n  .warning-box { background: #3a1010; border-left: 4px solid #c0392b; padding: 22px 28px; margin-top: 36px; grid-column: 1 \/ -1; }\n  .warning-box strong { color: #e07070; font-size: 13px; text-transform: uppercase; letter-spacing: 2px; display: block; margin-bottom: 8px; }\n  .warning-box p { color: rgba(255,255,255,0.82); font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.75; }\n\n  \/* SHARED *\/\n  .section-inner { max-width: 860px; margin: 0 auto; }\n  .section-label { font-size: 12px; letter-spacing: 3px; text-transform: uppercase; color: var(--gold); margin-bottom: 18px; display: flex; align-items: center; gap: 14px; }\n  .section-title { font-size: 38px; font-weight: 300; color: var(--navy); margin-bottom: 48px; line-height: 1.2; }\n\n  \/* ALERT STRIPE *\/\n  .alert-stripe { background: #fef9f0; border: 1px solid #e8c97a; border-left: 4px solid var(--amber); padding: 18px 24px; margin-top: 36px; font-size: 15px; color: var(--text-mid); line-height: 1.75; }\n  .alert-stripe strong { color: var(--amber); }\n\n  \/* COURTS STRIP *\/\n  .courts-strip { background: var(--navy); padding: 44px 40px; border-bottom: 3px solid var(--gold); }\n  .courts-inner { max-width: 860px; margin: 0 auto; display: grid; grid-template-columns: 1fr 1fr 1fr; gap: 2px; background: rgba(255,255,255,0.07); }\n  .courts-header { grid-column: 1 \/ -1; padding: 0 0 24px; background: transparent; }\n  .courts-header h2 { font-size: 22px; font-weight: 300; color: white; }\n  .courts-header p { font-size: 15px; color: rgba(255,255,255,0.6); margin-top: 6px; }\n  .court-card { background: var(--navy-mid); padding: 28px 26px; }\n  .court-card-label { font-size: 11px; letter-spacing: 2px; text-transform: uppercase; color: var(--gold); margin-bottom: 10px; }\n  .court-card h3 { font-size: 16px; font-weight: 700; color: white; margin-bottom: 10px; }\n  .court-card p { font-size: 14px; color: rgba(255,255,255,0.62); line-height: 1.75; }\n  .court-card a { color: var(--gold-light); }\n\n  \/* UNUSUAL FEATURES *\/\n  .features-section { padding: 80px 40px; background: var(--warm-white); }\n  .features-list { display: flex; flex-direction: column; gap: 2px; }\n  .feature-item { display: grid; grid-template-columns: 80px 1fr; background: var(--border); gap: 2px; }\n  .feature-num { background: var(--navy); color: var(--gold); font-size: 32px; font-weight: 900; display: flex; align-items: center; justify-content: center; padding: 28px 0; line-height: 1; }\n  .feature-body { background: var(--warm-white); padding: 32px 36px; }\n  .feature-body h3 { font-size: 18px; font-weight: 700; color: var(--navy); margin-bottom: 12px; }\n  .feature-body p { font-size: 15px; color: var(--text-mid); line-height: 1.85; }\n  .feature-body p + p { margin-top: 12px; }\n  .feature-body a { color: var(--gold); text-decoration: none; }\n  .feature-tag { display: inline-block; font-size: 11px; letter-spacing: 1.5px; text-transform: uppercase; background: var(--navy); color: var(--gold-light); padding: 3px 10px; margin-bottom: 12px; }\n  .feature-sub { margin-top: 16px; display: grid; grid-template-columns: 1fr 1fr; gap: 12px; }\n  .feature-sub-box { background: var(--cream); padding: 16px 18px; border-left: 3px solid var(--gold); }\n  .feature-sub-box h4 { font-size: 13px; font-weight: 700; color: var(--navy); text-transform: uppercase; letter-spacing: 1px; margin-bottom: 6px; }\n  .feature-sub-box ul { list-style: none; display: flex; flex-direction: column; gap: 5px; }\n  .feature-sub-box li { font-size: 14px; color: var(--text-mid); display: flex; gap: 8px; }\n  .feature-sub-box li::before { content: '\u2014'; color: var(--gold); flex-shrink: 0; }\n\n  \/* PROCEDURE SECTION *\/\n  .procedure-section { padding: 80px 40px; background: var(--cream); }\n  .procedure-grid { display: grid; grid-template-columns: 1fr 1fr; gap: 2px; background: var(--border); }\n  .proc-card { background: var(--cream); padding: 32px 28px; }\n  .proc-card-icon { width: 36px; height: 36px; color: var(--gold); margin-bottom: 16px; }\n  .proc-card h3 { font-size: 17px; font-weight: 700; color: var(--navy); margin-bottom: 10px; }\n  .proc-card p { font-size: 15px; color: var(--text-mid); line-height: 1.8; }\n  .proc-card p + p { margin-top: 10px; }\n  .proc-card a { color: var(--gold); text-decoration: none; }\n  .proc-card .tag-law { display: inline-block; font-size: 11px; letter-spacing: 1.5px; text-transform: uppercase; background: #1a5c2a; color: #a8d5b5; padding: 3px 10px; margin-bottom: 12px; }\n  .proc-card .tag-note { display: inline-block; font-size: 11px; letter-spacing: 1.5px; text-transform: uppercase; background: #e8eef8; color: #1a3a6c; border: 1px solid #a8bfe0; padding: 3px 10px; margin-bottom: 12px; }\n\n  \/* ENFORCEMENT \/ FOREIGN JUDGMENTS *\/\n  .enforce-section { padding: 80px 40px; background: var(--navy); color: white; }\n  .enforce-section .section-label { color: var(--gold-light); }\n  .enforce-section .section-title { color: white; }\n  .enforce-intro { color: rgba(255,255,255,0.65); font-size: 17px; max-width: 640px; margin-bottom: 52px; line-height: 1.8; }\n  .enforce-grid { display: grid; grid-template-columns: 1fr 1fr 1fr; gap: 2px; background: rgba(255,255,255,0.08); }\n  .enforce-item { background: var(--navy-mid); padding: 28px; }\n  .enforce-item h4 { font-size: 16px; font-weight: 700; color: var(--gold); margin-bottom: 8px; }\n  .enforce-item p { font-size: 14px; color: rgba(255,255,255,0.6); line-height: 1.75; }\n  .enforce-item a { color: var(--gold-light); }\n  .enforce-note { margin-top: 44px; border-left: 2px solid var(--gold); padding: 20px 28px; background: rgba(203,133,105,0.08); color: rgba(255,255,255,0.72); font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.8; }\n\n  \/* ARBITRATION *\/\n  .arb-section { padding: 80px 40px; background: var(--warm-white); }\n  .arb-inner { max-width: 860px; margin: 0 auto; display: grid; grid-template-columns: 1fr 1fr; gap: 60px; align-items: start; }\n  .arb-content h2 { font-size: 34px; font-weight: 300; color: var(--navy); margin-bottom: 20px; line-height: 1.25; }\n  .arb-content p { font-size: 16px; color: var(--text-mid); line-height: 1.85; margin-bottom: 14px; }\n  .arb-content a { color: var(--gold); text-decoration: none; }\n  .arb-box { background: var(--navy); padding: 20px 24px; margin-bottom: 16px; }\n  .arb-box strong { color: var(--gold); font-size: 13px; text-transform: uppercase; letter-spacing: 1.5px; display: block; margin-bottom: 8px; }\n  .arb-box p { color: rgba(255,255,255,0.75); font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.7; }\n  .compare-list { list-style: none; display: flex; flex-direction: column; gap: 14px; }\n  .compare-list li { display: flex; gap: 14px; align-items: flex-start; font-size: 15px; color: var(--text-mid); line-height: 1.65; }\n  .compare-icon-good { color: #1a5c2a; flex-shrink: 0; font-weight: 900; font-size: 16px; }\n  .compare-icon-warn { color: var(--amber); flex-shrink: 0; font-weight: 900; font-size: 16px; }\n\n  \/* MISTAKES *\/\n  .mistakes-section { padding: 80px 40px; background: var(--navy); color: white; }\n  .mistakes-section .section-label { color: var(--gold-light); }\n  .mistakes-section .section-title { color: white; }\n  .mistakes-grid { display: grid; grid-template-columns: 1fr 1fr; gap: 2px; background: rgba(255,255,255,0.08); }\n  .mistake-card { background: var(--navy-mid); padding: 28px; display: flex; gap: 18px; align-items: flex-start; }\n  .mistake-num { font-size: 38px; font-weight: 900; color: rgba(203,133,105,0.25); line-height: 1; flex-shrink: 0; width: 44px; }\n  .mistake-body h4 { font-size: 16px; font-weight: 700; color: var(--gold); margin-bottom: 8px; }\n  .mistake-body p { font-size: 14px; color: rgba(255,255,255,0.6); line-height: 1.75; }\n\n  \/* FURTHER *\/\n  .further-section { padding: 80px 40px; background: var(--cream); }\n  .further-grid { display: grid; grid-template-columns: 1fr 1fr; gap: 2px; background: var(--border); }\n  .further-card { background: var(--cream); padding: 32px 28px; }\n  .further-card h3 { font-size: 17px; font-weight: 700; color: var(--navy); margin-bottom: 10px; }\n  .further-card p { font-size: 15px; color: var(--text-mid); line-height: 1.8; }\n  .further-card p + p { margin-top: 10px; }\n  .further-card a { color: var(--gold); text-decoration: none; }\n  .further-card .update-tag { display: inline-block; font-size: 11px; letter-spacing: 1.5px; text-transform: uppercase; background: #e6f4ea; color: #1a5c2a; border: 1px solid #a8d5b5; padding: 2px 9px; margin-bottom: 10px; }\n  .further-card .new-tag { display: inline-block; font-size: 11px; letter-spacing: 1.5px; text-transform: uppercase; background: #e8eef8; color: #1a3a6c; border: 1px solid #a8bfe0; padding: 2px 9px; margin-bottom: 10px; }\n  .further-card .caution-tag { display: inline-block; font-size: 11px; letter-spacing: 1.5px; text-transform: uppercase; background: #fef3e0; color: #8a5200; border: 1px solid #f0c97a; padding: 2px 9px; margin-bottom: 10px; }\n\n  \/* TEAM *\/\n  .team-section { padding: 80px 40px; background: var(--warm-white); border-top: 1px solid var(--border); }\n  .team-inner { max-width: 860px; margin: 0 auto; display: grid; grid-template-columns: 1fr 1.5fr; gap: 70px; align-items: start; }\n  .team-content p { font-size: 17px; color: var(--text-mid); line-height: 1.85; margin-bottom: 16px; }\n  .team-content a { color: var(--gold); text-decoration: none; }\n\n  \/* CTA *\/\n  .cta-section { padding: 90px 40px; background: var(--cream); border-top: 1px solid var(--border); }\n  .cta-inner { max-width: 680px; margin: 0 auto; text-align: center; }\n  .cta-inner .section-label { justify-content: center; }\n  .cta-inner h2 { font-size: 38px; font-weight: 300; color: var(--navy); margin-bottom: 20px; line-height: 1.2; }\n  .cta-inner p { font-size: 17px; color: var(--text-mid); margin-bottom: 40px; line-height: 1.85; }\n  .cta-checklist { background: white; border: 1px solid var(--border); border-left: 4px solid var(--gold); padding: 24px 28px; margin-bottom: 32px; text-align: left; }\n  .cta-checklist h4 { font-size: 14px; text-transform: uppercase; letter-spacing: 2px; color: var(--gold); margin-bottom: 14px; }\n  .cta-checklist ul { list-style: none; display: flex; flex-direction: column; gap: 8px; }\n  .cta-checklist li { font-size: 14px; color: var(--text-mid); display: flex; gap: 10px; align-items: flex-start; }\n  .cta-checklist li::before { content: '\u2713'; color: var(--gold); font-weight: 700; flex-shrink: 0; }\n\n  @media (max-width: 760px) {\n    .hero { padding: 70px 24px 64px; }\n    .quickread-inner { grid-template-columns: 1fr; }\n    .intro-inner { grid-template-columns: 1fr; gap: 28px; }\n    .intro-inner h2 { grid-column: 1; }\n    .warning-box { grid-column: 1; }\n    .courts-inner { grid-template-columns: 1fr; }\n    .feature-item { grid-template-columns: 60px 1fr; }\n    .feature-sub { grid-template-columns: 1fr; }\n    .procedure-grid { grid-template-columns: 1fr; }\n    .enforce-grid { grid-template-columns: 1fr; }\n    .arb-inner { grid-template-columns: 1fr; }\n    .mistakes-grid { grid-template-columns: 1fr; }\n    .further-grid { grid-template-columns: 1fr; }\n    .team-inner { grid-template-columns: 1fr; }\n    .features-section, .procedure-section, .enforce-section, .arb-section, .mistakes-section, .further-section, .team-section, .cta-section { padding: 60px 24px; }\n    .intro-strip, .quickread, .courts-strip { padding: 50px 24px; }\n  }\n<\/style>\n\n<div class=\"dq-page-wrap\">\n\n<!-- HERO -->\n<section class=\"hero\">\n  <div class=\"hero-inner\">\n    <div class=\"hero-label\">D&Q Lawyers \u00b7 Dispute Resolution \u00b7 2026 Guide<\/div>\n    <h1>Litigating<br><em>in Brazil<\/em><\/h1>\n    <p style=\"font-size:15px;letter-spacing:2px;text-transform:uppercase;color:var(--gold);margin-bottom:20px;margin-top:-18px;\">The rules are different. So is the strategy.<\/p>\n    <p class=\"hero-sub\">\n      Litigating in Brazil is very different from litigating in common law jurisdictions. This guide explains how Brazilian civil litigation works for foreign companies and international clients, including court structure, evidence, document production, legal costs and enforcement. \n    <\/p>\n    <a href=\"#contact\" class=\"btn-primary\">Get in Touch<\/a>\n  <\/div>\n<\/section>\n\n<!-- QUICK READ -->\n<div class=\"quickread\">\n  <div class=\"quickread-inner\">\n    <div class=\"quickread-title\">Quick Read<\/div>\n    <div class=\"qr-item\"><div class=\"qr-dot\"><\/div><p><strong>Civil law, not common law:<\/strong> Brazil follows the civil law tradition. Courts apply codified rules. Precedent matters less than in common law systems, though the Supreme Court\u2019s binding decisions (<em>s\u00famulas vinculantes<\/em>) and the Superior Court of Justice\u2019s qualified precedents carry significant weight.<\/p><\/div>\n    <div class=\"qr-item\"><div class=\"qr-dot\"><\/div><p><strong>Documentary evidence dominates:<\/strong> Oral evidence carries substantially less weight than in common law jurisdictions. Judges conduct examinations of witnesses themselves. There is no cross-examination in the common law sense.<\/p><\/div>\n    <div class=\"qr-item\"><div class=\"qr-dot\"><\/div><p><strong>No discovery:<\/strong> Pre-trial disclosure of documents does not exist as a concept in Brazilian civil procedure. Requests for production must be highly specific, and obtaining documents from third parties requires a separate court action.<\/p><\/div>\n    <div class=\"qr-item\"><div class=\"qr-dot\"><\/div><p><strong>Legal costs go to the lawyers:<\/strong> When a party wins, the court orders the losing party to pay the winning party\u2019s <em>lawyers<\/em> a fee (<em>sucumb\u00eancia<\/em>) of 10\u201320% of the award. This amount belongs to the lawyers, not the winning party.<\/p><\/div>\n    <div class=\"qr-item\"><div class=\"qr-dot\"><\/div><p><strong>Litigation is slow:<\/strong> First instance decisions in complex commercial cases routinely take three to five years. Including appeals, a dispute can take a decade or more to resolve. Injunctive relief and enforcement proceedings run on their own timelines.<\/p><\/div>\n    <div class=\"qr-item\"><div class=\"qr-dot\"><\/div><p><strong>Arbitration is well established:<\/strong> Brazil has a mature arbitration framework under <a href=\"https:\/\/www.planalto.gov.br\/ccivil_03\/leis\/l9307.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" style=\"color:var(--gold-light);\">Law 9,307\/1996<\/a>. Arbitral awards are directly enforceable without court confirmation. For commercial disputes, arbitration is often faster and more predictable than litigation.<\/p><\/div>\n  <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n<!-- INTRO -->\n<section class=\"intro-strip\">\n  <div class=\"intro-inner\">\n    <h2>Brazilian litigation operates by different rules. Knowing them before the dispute is not optional.<\/h2>\n    <div class=\"intro-col\">\n      <p>Brazilian civil procedure is governed by the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.planalto.gov.br\/ccivil_03\/_ato2015-2018\/2015\/lei\/l13105.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Code of Civil Procedure<\/a> (<strong>CPC<\/strong>), enacted in 2015 and in force since March 2016. The CPC modernised Brazil\u2019s procedural law and introduced measures aimed at reducing delays and improving consistency, including a system of binding precedents at the appellate level. However, the fundamental features of Brazilian litigation, its emphasis on documentary evidence, the limited role of oral testimony, the absence of discovery, and the civil law approach to proof, remain firmly in place.<\/p>\n      <p>Brazil has a dual court structure: federal courts, which hear matters involving the Federal Government, federal agencies and certain subject-matter categories, and state courts, which handle the majority of civil and commercial disputes. Specialist labour courts operate entirely separately under the Labour Court system (<em>Justi\u00e7a do Trabalho<\/em>). At the apex are the Superior Court of Justice (<em>Superior Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a<\/em>, <strong>STJ<\/strong>) for federal law questions and the Federal Supreme Court (<em>Supremo Tribunal Federal<\/em>, <strong>STF<\/strong>) for constitutional matters.<\/p>\n    <\/div>\n    <div class=\"intro-col\">\n      <p>For parties accustomed to common law litigation, including Australian, British, American and New Zealand practitioners and their clients, the differences are material. The judge-led examination of witnesses, the narrow scope of document production and the distinctive costs rules all require a fundamental adjustment in litigation strategy. Assumptions carried from other jurisdictions about what is \u201cnormal\u201d in litigation frequently lead to poor decisions about whether to commence proceedings, how to prepare a case and how to assess the likely outcome.<\/p>\n      <p>This guide sets out the key features of Brazilian civil litigation that are most likely to surprise practitioners from common law backgrounds, followed by an overview of the court structure, procedural framework, enforcement rules and arbitration as an alternative. It is based on the original article <a href=\"https:\/\/lawsofbrazil.com\/litigation-in-brazil-unusual-features\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">\u201cLitigation in Brazil: Unusual Features\u201d<\/a> published on LawsofBrazil.com.<\/p>\n    <\/div>\n\n    <div class=\"warning-box\">\n      <strong>Limitation periods<\/strong>\n      <p>Brazilian limitation periods vary significantly by cause of action and are set out across the Civil Code and specific legislation. The general rule under the Civil Code is 3 years for personal claims and 10 years for claims not covered by a specific provision. Labour claims have a 2-year post-termination limitation with a 5-year lookback. Missing a limitation period in Brazil is as fatal as in any other jurisdiction. Limitation analysis should be the first step in any assessment of a potential Brazilian claim.<\/p>\n    <\/div>\n  <\/div>\n<\/section>\n\n<!-- COURT STRUCTURE -->\n<section class=\"courts-strip\">\n  <div class=\"section-inner\">\n    <div class=\"courts-inner\">\n      <div class=\"courts-header\">\n        <h2>The Brazilian court structure<\/h2>\n        <p>Understanding which court hears what, and where appeals go, is the foundation of any Brazilian litigation strategy.<\/p>\n      <\/div>\n      <div class=\"court-card\">\n        <div class=\"court-card-label\">Constitutional Apex<\/div>\n        <h3>Federal Supreme Court (<em>Supremo Tribunal Federal<\/em>, STF)<\/h3>\n        <p>The <strong>STF<\/strong> is the supreme court for constitutional matters. It hears direct constitutional challenges, disputes between states and the Federal Government, and extraordinary appeals raising constitutional questions. Its <em>s\u00famulas vinculantes<\/em> (binding precedent summaries) are legally binding on all courts and public administration. In recent years the STF has taken an increasingly active role in matters with broad economic and political consequence, including tax and labour disputes.<\/p>\n      <\/div>\n      <div class=\"court-card\">\n        <div class=\"court-card-label\">Federal Law Apex<\/div>\n        <h3>Superior Court of Justice (<em>Superior Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a<\/em>, STJ)<\/h3>\n        <p>The <strong>STJ<\/strong> is the apex court for the uniform interpretation of federal law in non-constitutional matters. It hears special appeals (<em>recurso especial<\/em>) where a lower court has applied federal law incorrectly or diverged from STJ precedent. The STJ also has original jurisdiction to hear the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, which must pass through the STJ before execution can be sought in Brazil. STJ decisions on recurring legal questions may be issued as binding qualified precedents (<em>recursos repetitivos<\/em>).<\/p>\n      <\/div>\n      <div class=\"court-card\">\n        <div class=\"court-card-label\">Specialised System<\/div>\n        <h3>Labour Courts (<em>Justi\u00e7a do Trabalho<\/em>)<\/h3>\n        <p>The <em>Justi\u00e7a do Trabalho<\/em> operates as an entirely separate court system from the general civil courts, with its own trial courts (<em>Varas do Trabalho<\/em>), Regional Labour Court appellate courts (<em>Tribunais Regionais do Trabalho<\/em>, <strong>TRT<\/strong>s) and a supreme appellate body, the Superior Labour Court (<em>Tribunal Superior do Trabalho<\/em>, <strong>TST<\/strong>). Labour courts apply the CLT and specific labour legislation. They are procedurally distinct, historically employee-protective and generate the highest volume of new cases in the Brazilian judicial system. See our <a href=\"https:\/\/www.deqlaw.com.br\/employment-law-brazil\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" style=\"color:var(--gold-light);\">employment law guide<\/a> for detail on labour disputes.<\/p>\n      <\/div>\n      <div class=\"court-card\">\n        <div class=\"court-card-label\">Federal Jurisdiction<\/div>\n        <h3>Federal Courts (<em>Justi\u00e7a Federal<\/em>)<\/h3>\n        <p>Federal courts hear cases involving the Federal Government, federal public entities, federal agencies and certain subject-matter categories assigned by the Federal Constitution, including bankruptcy and tax disputes with federal revenue authorities. Each state has a Federal Court (<em>Se\u00e7\u00e3o Judici\u00e1ria<\/em>) at first instance, with regional federal appellate courts (<em>Tribunais Regionais Federais<\/em>, <strong>TRF<\/strong>s) at the second tier.<\/p>\n      <\/div>\n      <div class=\"court-card\">\n        <div class=\"court-card-label\">General Civil & Commercial<\/div>\n        <h3>State Courts (<em>Justi\u00e7a Estadual<\/em>)<\/h3>\n        <p>State courts handle the majority of civil and commercial disputes: contract claims, property disputes, corporate matters, debt recovery and tort claims where no federal element is present. Each state has its own court of appeal (<em>Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a<\/em>, <strong>TJ<\/strong>). Many states have specialist commercial chambers within their court systems. Choice of venue (which state court is competent) can be contractually agreed for matters that do not involve exclusive jurisdiction rules, with the CPC imposing a mandatory S\u00e3o Paulo venue for many B2B contracts.<\/p>\n      <\/div>\n      <div class=\"court-card\">\n        <div class=\"court-card-label\">Small Claims<\/div>\n        <h3>Special Civil Courts (<em>Juizados Especiais<\/em>)<\/h3>\n        <p>The Special Civil Courts (<em>Juizados Especiais C\u00edveis<\/em>, <strong>JEC<\/strong>s) handle lower-value civil claims (up to 40 minimum wages for state JECs) using a simplified, faster procedure. Legal representation is not mandatory for claims up to 20 minimum wages. JECs operate on an oral procedure model and aim to resolve disputes within months rather than years. Federal Special Courts (<em>Juizados Especiais Federais<\/em>) handle lower-value federal claims. Consumer claims against companies are frequently filed in JECs regardless of the amount, as procedural simplicity favours claimants.<\/p>\n      <\/div>\n    <\/div>\n  <\/div>\n<\/section>\n\n<!-- FIVE UNUSUAL FEATURES -->\n<section class=\"features-section\">\n  <div class=\"section-inner\">\n    <div class=\"section-label\">Unusual Features<\/div>\n    <h2 class=\"section-title\">Five features of Brazilian litigation that surprise common law practitioners<\/h2>\n    <div class=\"features-list\">\n\n      <div class=\"feature-item\">\n        <div class=\"feature-num\">01<\/div>\n        <div class=\"feature-body\">\n          <div class=\"feature-tag\">Evidence<\/div>\n          <h3>Parties and some deponents are not bound to tell the truth<\/h3>\n          <p>A person giving evidence will only be regarded as a witness (<em>testemunha<\/em>) by Brazilian courts if there is no impediment (<em>impedimento<\/em>) or suspicion (<em>suspei\u00e7\u00e3o<\/em>) affecting their relationship to the parties. If either condition exists, the deponent may still be heard by the court, but only as a party or as an informant (<em>informante<\/em>). Informants are not sworn in. What they state is not treated as evidence (<em>prova<\/em>) but as information (<em>informa\u00e7\u00e3o<\/em>), which is given substantially less weight in the judge\u2019s assessment.<\/p>\n          <p>For common law practitioners, this is a significant structural difference. In Australia, England or the United States, all witnesses are sworn and subject to the same duties of truthfulness and the same exposure to perjury. In Brazil, the categories of informant and party testimony exist precisely because the law acknowledges that those with an interest in the outcome cannot be held to a witness\u2019s standard of truthfulness.<\/p>\n          <div class=\"feature-sub\">\n            <div class=\"feature-sub-box\">\n              <h4>Impediment (<em>impedimento<\/em>)<\/h4>\n              <ul>\n                <li>The deponent is a party in the action<\/li>\n                <li>The deponent is related to a party (except where public interest demands otherwise)<\/li>\n                <li>The deponent acts for, or has assisted, a party<\/li>\n              <\/ul>\n            <\/div>\n            <div class=\"feature-sub-box\">\n              <h4>Suspicion (<em>suspei\u00e7\u00e3o<\/em>)<\/h4>\n              <ul>\n                <li>The deponent is a party\u2019s enemy or close friend<\/li>\n                <li>The deponent has a direct interest in the outcome of the dispute<\/li>\n              <\/ul>\n            <\/div>\n          <\/div>\n        <\/div>\n      <\/div>\n\n      <div class=\"feature-item\">\n        <div class=\"feature-num\">02<\/div>\n        <div class=\"feature-body\">\n          <div class=\"feature-tag\">Hearings<\/div>\n          <h3>No cross-examination, short hearings and judge\u2019s minutes of oral evidence<\/h3>\n          <p>In Brazilian civil proceedings, the judge conducts the examination of witnesses, not the parties\u2019 lawyers. While judges do permit lawyers to ask questions, they frequently rephrase those questions as they see fit before putting them to the witness. The tactical ability to challenge a witness\u2019s credibility through sustained cross-examination, which is a central tool in common law litigation, does not exist in the same form in Brazil.<\/p>\n          <p>Witness hearings are short. Most witnesses spend between 15 and 30 minutes being questioned, and the entire evidentiary hearing for a commercial dispute will typically last a few hours rather than several days. At the conclusion of a witness\u2019s examination, the judge dictates or types a summary of the evidence given. This summary, not a verbatim transcript, becomes the official record. Lawyers on each side may propose amendments to the summary, but the judge is not bound to accept them. The strategic implication is that the summary can inadvertently omit or misrepresent aspects of the testimony, and there is limited recourse once it is recorded.<\/p>\n          <p>The combined effect of these features is that oral evidence carries far less weight in Brazilian civil proceedings than in common law jurisdictions. A well-documented paper record is the primary basis on which most Brazilian cases are decided.<\/p>\n        <\/div>\n      <\/div>\n\n      <div class=\"feature-item\">\n        <div class=\"feature-num\">03<\/div>\n        <div class=\"feature-body\">\n          <div class=\"feature-tag\">Evidence<\/div>\n          <h3>Discovery and disclosure are extremely limited<\/h3>\n          <p>As a civil law jurisdiction, Brazil does not have a system of pre-trial discovery or disclosure in any form resembling common law practice. There is no obligation on a party to disclose documents that are relevant but adverse to its own case. Requests for production of documents must be highly specific: a request for \u201call documents that are or may be relevant to the dispute\u201d is not a valid request and will be rejected. Each document requested must be identified specifically.<\/p>\n          <p>Obtaining documents from non-parties is even more difficult. A separate court action must be filed against the non-party to compel production, and that action can take years to resolve. Other constraints that limit document availability include the width of legal professional privilege in Brazilian law, bank secrecy provisions, data protection rules under the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.deqlaw.com.br\/lgpd-brazil\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">General Data Protection Law<\/a> (<strong>LGPD<\/strong>), and the extensive application of the privilege against self-incrimination. There is no pre-trial deposition procedure of any kind.<\/p>\n          <p>The practical consequence is that a party to Brazilian litigation must build its case almost entirely from documents it already holds at the time proceedings are commenced. The strategic advice for any party with potential exposure to Brazilian litigation is to maintain comprehensive records from the outset of any commercial relationship, not just after a dispute has arisen.<\/p>\n          <div class=\"alert-stripe\" style=\"margin-top:20px;\">\n            <strong>Hague Evidence Convention:<\/strong> Brazil acceded to the <a href=\"https:\/\/lawsofbrazil.com\/brazil-hague-evidence-convention\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Hague Evidence Convention<\/a> in 2022. This provides a mechanism for obtaining evidence in Brazil for use in foreign court proceedings (and vice versa), through letters of request transmitted between central authorities. The Convention does not create a discovery-style obligation, but it does make targeted evidence-gathering requests more practicable than before accession.\n          <\/div>\n        <\/div>\n      <\/div>\n\n      <div class=\"feature-item\">\n        <div class=\"feature-num\">04<\/div>\n        <div class=\"feature-body\">\n          <div class=\"feature-tag\">Costs<\/div>\n          <h3>Legal costs are awarded to the lawyers, not the winning party, and settlement offers do not affect costs<\/h3>\n          <p>When a party wins a case in Brazil, the court will order the losing party to pay the winning party\u2019s lawyers a fee. This is called <em>sucumb\u00eancia<\/em> (from <em>sucumbir<\/em>, to lose). Under the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.planalto.gov.br\/ccivil_03\/_ato2015-2018\/2015\/lei\/l13105.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">CPC<\/a>, the amount is generally set at between 10% and 20% of the sum awarded, and crucially, the law provides that this amount belongs to the lawyers and must be paid directly to them. It does not go to the winning party as a contribution toward that party\u2019s legal costs.<\/p>\n          <p>The first implication is that a winning party in Brazilian litigation does not receive a costs contribution that offsets its actual legal fees paid. The <em>sucumb\u00eancia<\/em> award is a separate payment to counsel, not to the client. A party that pays its lawyers BRL 500,000 in fees over a three-year dispute and wins an award of BRL 2 million will receive the BRL 2 million but will not recover any of its own legal costs from the losing party.<\/p>\n          <p>The second implication is equally important for common law practitioners: there is no mechanism in Brazilian procedure equivalent to a Calderbank offer or a Part 36 offer (in the English system) or a Sandbagging offer (in Australian practice). Making a formal offer to settle does not affect the costs order that a court will make. A party that rejects a reasonable settlement offer and later obtains a judgment no better than the offer will face no adverse costs consequence in Brazil. This fundamentally changes the economics of settlement negotiation.<\/p>\n        <\/div>\n      <\/div>\n\n      <div class=\"feature-item\">\n        <div class=\"feature-num\">05<\/div>\n        <div class=\"feature-body\">\n          <div class=\"feature-tag\">Enforcement<\/div>\n          <h3>Direct enforcement of negotiable instruments and witnessed contracts<\/h3>\n          <p>Brazilian procedural law recognises a category of documents as <em>t\u00edtulos executivos extrajudiciais<\/em> (extra-judicial enforceable instruments), which may be enforced directly through enforcement proceedings (<em>execu\u00e7\u00e3o<\/em>) without the need to first obtain a judgment through ordinary civil proceedings. These include negotiable instruments (promissory notes, bills of exchange, cheques and debentures) and contracts signed by two witnesses, among others listed in the CPC.<\/p>\n          <p>The key advantage of enforcement proceedings over ordinary civil proceedings is speed at the outset: an enforcement debtor must provide security of payment to the court <strong>within three business days<\/strong> of service of process. This security requirement, which must be satisfied by deposit, guarantee bond or attachment of assets, gives the creditor an early protective measure that ordinary civil proceedings do not provide at the same stage.<\/p>\n          <p>For documents issued outside Brazil, the additional requirements are that the document must comply with the formalities of the jurisdiction in which it was made, and Brazil must have been chosen as the place of performance of the obligation. Foreign documents that do not meet these conditions cannot be used as the basis for enforcement proceedings; the creditor must instead file an ordinary civil action, with all the delays that entails.<\/p>\n          <div class=\"alert-stripe\" style=\"margin-top:20px;\">\n            <strong>Practical tip for contracts with Brazilian counterparties:<\/strong> Including two witness signatures on a written contract (and ensuring they are identified by name and CPF number) converts the contract into an enforceable instrument under the CPC. This is a low-cost structural measure that significantly improves a creditor\u2019s position if enforcement ever becomes necessary.\n          <\/div>\n        <\/div>\n      <\/div>\n\n    <\/div>\n  <\/div>\n<\/section>\n\n<!-- PROCEDURAL FRAMEWORK -->\n<section class=\"procedure-section\">\n  <div class=\"section-inner\">\n    <div class=\"section-label\">Procedural Framework<\/div>\n    <h2 class=\"section-title\">How Brazilian civil proceedings work in practice<\/h2>\n    <div class=\"procedure-grid\">\n\n      <div class=\"proc-card\">\n        <svg class=\"proc-card-icon\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\" stroke=\"currentColor\" stroke-width=\"1.5\" stroke-linecap=\"round\" stroke-linejoin=\"round\"><path d=\"M14 2H6a2 2 0 0 0-2 2v16a2 2 0 0 0 2 2h12a2 2 0 0 0 2-2V8z\"\/><polyline points=\"14 2 14 8 20 8\"\/><\/svg>\n        <div class=\"tag-law\">CPC 2015<\/div>\n        <h3>Commencing proceedings and service of process<\/h3>\n        <p>Proceedings are commenced by filing a <em>peti\u00e7\u00e3o inicial<\/em> (initial petition) with the competent court. The petition must state the facts, the legal basis for the claim, the evidence the claimant intends to produce and the specific relief sought. Courts have become more demanding about the completeness of the initial petition since the 2015 CPC reform.<\/p>\n        <p>Service of process on parties within Brazil is made electronically through the court system for registered lawyers and via bailiff or postal service for individuals and companies without electronic registration. Service on parties outside Brazil is made through the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.hcch.net\/en\/instruments\/conventions\/full-text\/?cid=17\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Hague Service Convention<\/a>, to which Brazil acceded in 2019, or through letters rogatory for non-signatory countries. Service through the Hague Convention on an Australian or US defendant typically takes several months.<\/p>\n      <\/div>\n\n      <div class=\"proc-card\">\n        <svg class=\"proc-card-icon\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\" stroke=\"currentColor\" stroke-width=\"1.5\" stroke-linecap=\"round\" stroke-linejoin=\"round\"><circle cx=\"12\" cy=\"12\" r=\"10\"\/><path d=\"M12 6v6l4 2\"\/><\/svg>\n        <div class=\"tag-note\">Timing<\/div>\n        <h3>Timelines and delays<\/h3>\n        <p>Brazilian civil litigation is slow. A first instance judgment in a straightforward commercial case typically takes two to four years from filing. Complex matters with multiple parties, expert evidence or multiple evidentiary hearings routinely take five years or more. Appeals can add three to seven years to that timeline. Reaching the STJ or STF adds further years.<\/p>\n        <p>The 2015 CPC introduced a series of procedural efficiency measures, including mandatory preliminary hearings for settlement and procedural organisation, time limits for judgment and a system of binding precedents intended to reduce the volume of repetitive appeals. These reforms have had some effect, but systemic delays remain a defining feature of Brazilian court proceedings. Parties with urgent needs typically apply for injunctive relief (<em>tutela de urg\u00eancia<\/em>) at the commencement of proceedings rather than waiting for a final judgment.<\/p>\n      <\/div>\n\n      <div class=\"proc-card\">\n        <svg class=\"proc-card-icon\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\" stroke=\"currentColor\" stroke-width=\"1.5\" stroke-linecap=\"round\" stroke-linejoin=\"round\"><path d=\"M12 22s8-4 8-10V5l-8-3-8 3v7c0 6 8 10 8 10z\"\/><\/svg>\n        <div class=\"tag-law\">CPC Arts. 294\u2013311<\/div>\n        <h3>Injunctive relief (<em>tutela de urg\u00eancia<\/em>)<\/h3>\n        <p>The CPC provides for two categories of urgent interim relief: <em>tutela cautelar<\/em> (precautionary relief, such as asset freezing) and <em>tutela antecipada<\/em> (anticipated relief, granting the substance of the claim on an interim basis). Both require the claimant to demonstrate the plausibility of the right asserted and the risk of serious harm or frustration of the remedy if relief is not granted.<\/p>\n        <p>Injunctive relief can be granted <em>ex parte<\/em> where the element of surprise is essential to its effectiveness. Asset freezing orders (<em>arresto<\/em> and <em>penhora online<\/em>) are commonly used in debt recovery proceedings. The <em>penhora online<\/em> mechanism allows courts to electronically freeze bank accounts and financial assets with significant speed and efficiency, and is one of the most effective enforcement tools available in the Brazilian system.<\/p>\n      <\/div>\n\n      <div class=\"proc-card\">\n        <svg class=\"proc-card-icon\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\" stroke=\"currentColor\" stroke-width=\"1.5\" stroke-linecap=\"round\" stroke-linejoin=\"round\"><path d=\"M17 21v-2a4 4 0 0 0-4-4H5a4 4 0 0 0-4 4v2\"\/><circle cx=\"9\" cy=\"7\" r=\"4\"\/><\/svg>\n        <div class=\"tag-note\">Evidence<\/div>\n        <h3>Expert evidence (<em>prova pericial<\/em>)<\/h3>\n        <p>Expert evidence plays a central role in Brazilian commercial litigation. Where a claim requires technical assessment, including accounting disputes, construction defects, intellectual property infringement, or medical questions, the court typically appoints its own expert (<em>perito<\/em>) rather than relying on party-appointed experts. Each party may appoint an <em>assistente t\u00e9cnico<\/em> (technical assistant) to review and challenge the court expert\u2019s findings, but the court expert\u2019s report carries presumptive weight.<\/p>\n        <p>This differs significantly from common law practice, where party-appointed experts present competing reports and are cross-examined. In Brazil, the court expert\u2019s opinion frequently determines the outcome on technical questions. Choosing the right technical assistant and effectively challenging the court expert\u2019s methodology is therefore a critical tactical consideration.<\/p>\n      <\/div>\n\n      <div class=\"proc-card\">\n        <svg class=\"proc-card-icon\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\" stroke=\"currentColor\" stroke-width=\"1.5\" stroke-linecap=\"round\" stroke-linejoin=\"round\"><line x1=\"12\" y1=\"1\" x2=\"12\" y2=\"23\"\/><path d=\"M17 5H9.5a3.5 3.5 0 0 0 0 7h5a3.5 3.5 0 0 1 0 7H6\"\/><\/svg>\n        <div class=\"tag-note\">Costs<\/div>\n        <h3>Court fees and costs (<em>custas<\/em> and <em>sucumb\u00eancia<\/em>)<\/h3>\n        <p>Brazilian civil proceedings involve two distinct cost categories. <em>Custas processuais<\/em> are court fees charged by the judiciary for each procedural step: filing, appeals, expert appointments and so on. These are paid by the party initiating each step and are ultimately borne by the losing party as part of the final costs order.<\/p>\n        <p><em>Honor\u00e1rios de sucumb\u00eancia<\/em> are the legal costs ordered by the court against the losing party, payable to the winning party\u2019s lawyers at a rate of 10\u201320% of the award. As noted above, these belong to the lawyers and do not reduce the winning party\u2019s own legal costs. Separate from <em>sucumb\u00eancia<\/em>, Brazilian lawyers typically charge clients on a hybrid of time-based fees and a success component (<em>honor\u00e1rios de \u00eaxito<\/em>), which is deducted from the <em>sucumb\u00eancia<\/em> award received.<\/p>\n      <\/div>\n\n      <div class=\"proc-card\">\n        <svg class=\"proc-card-icon\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\" stroke=\"currentColor\" stroke-width=\"1.5\" stroke-linecap=\"round\" stroke-linejoin=\"round\"><rect x=\"2\" y=\"3\" width=\"20\" height=\"14\" rx=\"2\"\/><line x1=\"8\" y1=\"21\" x2=\"16\" y2=\"21\"\/><line x1=\"12\" y1=\"17\" x2=\"12\" y2=\"21\"\/><\/svg>\n        <div class=\"tag-law\">CPC 2015 \u00b7 Binding Precedents<\/div>\n        <h3>Precedent and the binding decision system<\/h3>\n        <p>Brazil\u2019s civil law tradition historically gave little weight to precedent: courts were not bound by previous decisions, including their own. The 2015 CPC significantly changed this by creating a structured system of binding precedents. STF <em>s\u00famulas vinculantes<\/em> are binding on all courts. STJ decisions on recurring questions (<em>recursos repetitivos<\/em>) create binding interpretations of federal law. TJ and TRF decisions issued through the <em>incidente de resolu\u00e7\u00e3o de demandas repetitivas<\/em> (IRDR) procedure bind all first-instance courts within that jurisdiction.<\/p>\n        <p>The practical effect is that the outcome of many Brazilian disputes, particularly in tax, consumer and insurance matters, is now substantially determined by appellate precedent rather than the facts of the individual case. For any dispute that touches a legally settled area, the first step in Brazilian litigation strategy is identifying and assessing the applicable precedents.<\/p>\n      <\/div>\n\n    <\/div>\n  <\/div>\n<\/section>\n\n<!-- ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS -->\n<section class=\"enforce-section\">\n  <div class=\"section-inner\">\n    <div class=\"section-label\">Enforcement<\/div>\n    <h2 class=\"section-title\">Enforcing judgments in Brazil and enforcing Brazilian judgments abroad<\/h2>\n    <p class=\"enforce-intro\">Brazil has a specific process for both recognising foreign judgments for enforcement in Brazil and for confirming that Brazilian judgments can be enforced abroad. Neither is automatic.<\/p>\n    <div class=\"enforce-grid\">\n\n      <div class=\"enforce-item\">\n        <h4>Recognising foreign judgments in Brazil (<em>homologa\u00e7\u00e3o<\/em>)<\/h4>\n        <p>A foreign judgment cannot be directly enforced in Brazil. It must first be recognised through a <em>homologa\u00e7\u00e3o<\/em> proceeding before the STJ. The STJ does not re-examine the merits of the foreign decision. It reviews only procedural validity: whether the court that issued the judgment had jurisdiction, whether service of process was properly made, whether the decision is final in the originating country, and whether the judgment conflicts with Brazilian public policy (<em>ordem p\u00fablica<\/em>) or national sovereignty. Once homologated, the foreign judgment is enforced in Brazil by the competent federal court.<\/p>\n      <\/div>\n\n      <div class=\"enforce-item\">\n        <h4>Enforcing Brazilian judgments abroad<\/h4>\n        <p>Brazilian judgments may be enforced abroad subject to the rules of the country where enforcement is sought. Brazil has reciprocal enforcement treaties with a limited number of countries. For countries without a treaty, enforcement generally depends on whether the foreign court is willing to recognise the Brazilian judgment under its own domestic rules. Common law courts in Australia, England and the United States have generally been willing to enforce Brazilian money judgments that meet their standard requirements for recognition of foreign judgments, provided the Brazilian court had jurisdiction and the proceedings met due process standards.<\/p>\n      <\/div>\n\n      <div class=\"enforce-item\">\n        <h4>Enforcing within Brazil: <em>penhora online<\/em> and asset attachment<\/h4>\n        <p>Once a judgment (or an enforceable instrument) is being executed in Brazil, creditors have access to several enforcement tools. The most effective is <em>penhora online<\/em>, the court\u2019s electronic seizure of the debtor\u2019s bank accounts and financial investments through the SISBAJUD system. This system allows courts to identify and block funds held across all Brazilian financial institutions simultaneously, with the block taking effect within minutes of the court order. Asset attachment more broadly covers immovable property, vehicles, shares and receivables, each subject to specific registration and priority rules.<\/p>\n      <\/div>\n\n      <div class=\"enforce-item\">\n        <h4>Hague Service Convention<\/h4>\n        <p>Brazil acceded to the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.hcch.net\/en\/instruments\/conventions\/full-text\/?cid=17\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Hague Service Convention<\/a> in 2019. Service of Brazilian court process on defendants abroad in Convention countries (including Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom and most of Western Europe) is now made through the Convention\u2019s central authority mechanism rather than through the slower letters rogatory process. Service on defendants in non-Convention countries still requires letters rogatory transmitted through diplomatic channels, which can take years. The Convention also facilitates service of foreign court process on defendants located in Brazil.<\/p>\n      <\/div>\n\n      <div class=\"enforce-item\">\n        <h4>Hague Evidence Convention<\/h4>\n        <p>Brazil acceded to the <a href=\"https:\/\/lawsofbrazil.com\/brazil-hague-evidence-convention\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Hague Evidence Convention<\/a> in 2022. The Convention provides a mechanism for obtaining evidence located in Brazil for use in foreign court proceedings, and for obtaining evidence in other Convention countries for use in Brazilian proceedings, through letters of request transmitted between designated central authorities. This is particularly relevant where documents or witnesses in Brazil are needed for litigation in Australia, the United States or Europe. The Convention does not create discovery obligations but does make targeted evidence-gathering more practicable than before Brazil\u2019s accession.<\/p>\n      <\/div>\n\n      <div class=\"enforce-item\">\n        <h4>Choice of forum clauses<\/h4>\n        <p>The enforceability of contractual choice of forum clauses has been the subject of significant development in Brazil. Under CPC 2015, choice of forum clauses are generally enforceable in commercial contracts between sophisticated parties. However, recent legislative and regulatory changes have introduced specific requirements for the validity of arbitration and forum clauses in certain sectors. Contracts that submit disputes to foreign courts must be carefully drafted to meet Brazilian validity requirements, and the enforceability position should be reviewed against current STJ case law before execution. See our separate <a href=\"https:\/\/lawsofbrazil.com\/choice-of-forum-in-brazil-recent-changes-may-render-clauses-void\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" style=\"color:var(--gold-light);\">article on choice of forum clauses in Brazil<\/a>.<\/p>\n      <\/div>\n\n    <\/div>\n    <div class=\"enforce-note\">\n      <strong>No direct enforcement of foreign arbitral awards:<\/strong> Foreign arbitral awards, like foreign court judgments, must be homologated by the STJ before they can be enforced in Brazil. However, the homologation of foreign arbitral awards is governed by the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.planalto.gov.br\/ccivil_03\/leis\/l9307.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" style=\"color:var(--gold-light);\">Brazilian Arbitration Act<\/a> and the New York Convention (to which Brazil is a party), and is generally faster and more predictable than the homologation of foreign court judgments. The grounds for refusing homologation of a foreign award are narrow and broadly aligned with the New York Convention\u2019s Article V.\n    <\/div>\n  <\/div>\n<\/section>\n\n<!-- ARBITRATION -->\n<section class=\"arb-section\">\n  <div class=\"section-inner\">\n    <div class=\"arb-inner\">\n      <div class=\"arb-content\">\n        <div class=\"section-label\">Arbitration<\/div>\n        <h2>Arbitration in Brazil: a mature and widely used alternative<\/h2>\n\n        <div class=\"arb-box\">\n          <strong>Law 9,307\/1996 (the Brazilian Arbitration Act)<\/strong>\n          <p>Brazil\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/www.planalto.gov.br\/ccivil_03\/leis\/l9307.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" style=\"color:var(--gold-light);\">Arbitration Act<\/a> has been in force since 1996 and established arbitration as a fully recognised and enforceable dispute resolution mechanism. Domestic arbitral awards do not require court confirmation: they are final and directly enforceable as judicial decisions. The Act was amended in 2015 to extend arbitration to disputes involving the public sector and to clarify key procedural provisions.<\/p>\n        <\/div>\n\n        <div class=\"arb-box\">\n          <strong>New York Convention<\/strong>\n          <p>Brazil is a signatory to the <a href=\"https:\/\/uncitral.un.org\/en\/texts\/arbitration\/conventions\/foreign_arbitral_awards\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" style=\"color:var(--gold-light);\">New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards<\/a>. Foreign awards issued in Convention countries are eligible for recognition in Brazil through the STJ homologation process, which applies the Convention\u2019s narrow refusal grounds. Recognition of foreign awards in Brazil has become significantly more consistent since the 2000s.<\/p>\n        <\/div>\n\n        <p>The main arbitral institutions active in Brazilian commercial disputes are the <strong><a href=\"https:\/\/ccbc.org.br\/cam-ccbc-centro-arbitragem-mediacao\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">CAM-CCBC<\/a><\/strong> (Centre for Arbitration and Mediation of the Brazil-Canada Chamber of Commerce, S\u00e3o Paulo), the <strong><a href=\"https:\/\/www.camarb.com.br\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">CAMARB<\/a><\/strong> (Brazilian Arbitration Chamber) and the <strong><a href=\"https:\/\/direitosp.fgv.br\/camara-fgv-de-arbitragem\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">FGV Arbitration Chamber<\/a><\/strong>. International institutional rules, including <a href=\"https:\/\/iccwbo.org\/dispute-resolution\/dispute-resolution-services\/arbitration\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">ICC<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.icdr.org\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">ICDR<\/a>, are also commonly used for cross-border disputes with Brazilian parties. Brazilian-seat arbitration is conducted in Portuguese as the default language.<\/p>\n      <\/div>\n\n      <ul class=\"compare-list\">\n        <li><span class=\"compare-icon-good\">+<\/span><span><strong>Speed:<\/strong> Arbitration in Brazil typically resolves in 12\u201324 months from commencement to award, compared to 4\u20138 years or more in court.<\/span><\/li>\n        <li><span class=\"compare-icon-good\">+<\/span><span><strong>Confidentiality:<\/strong> Arbitral proceedings and awards are private. Brazilian court proceedings are generally public.<\/span><\/li>\n        <li><span class=\"compare-icon-good\">+<\/span><span><strong>Technical expertise:<\/strong> Arbitral tribunals can be constituted with specialists in the relevant field, which is particularly valuable in complex commercial, construction and IP disputes.<\/span><\/li>\n        <li><span class=\"compare-icon-good\">+<\/span><span><strong>Finality:<\/strong> Domestic arbitral awards are final. Appeals on the merits are not available; only narrow procedural challenges (<em>a\u00e7\u00e3o de nulidade<\/em>) are permitted, and these rarely succeed.<\/span><\/li>\n        <li><span class=\"compare-icon-good\">+<\/span><span><strong>Cross-border enforceability:<\/strong> An award issued in Brazil is enforceable internationally under the New York Convention in over 170 countries.<\/span><\/li>\n        <li><span class=\"compare-icon-warn\">!<\/span><span><strong>Cost:<\/strong> Arbitration in Brazil is expensive. Institutional fees, arbitrator fees and legal costs in a complex dispute can be substantially higher than court proceedings, particularly at higher claim values.<\/span><\/li>\n        <li><span class=\"compare-icon-warn\">!<\/span><span><strong>Interim relief still requires courts:<\/strong> Arbitral tribunals can grant interim measures, but enforcing those measures against a non-compliant party requires court assistance.<\/span><\/li>\n        <li><span class=\"compare-icon-warn\">!<\/span><span><strong>Not available for all disputes:<\/strong> Arbitration may only be agreed for <em>direitos patrimoniais dispon\u00edveis<\/em> (disposable patrimonial rights). Disputes involving public order, consumer rights (in most circumstances) and certain employment matters cannot be arbitrated.<\/span><\/li>\n      <\/ul>\n    <\/div>\n  <\/div>\n<\/section>\n\n<!-- COMMON MISTAKES -->\n<section class=\"mistakes-section\">\n  <div class=\"section-inner\">\n    <div class=\"section-label\">Common Mistakes<\/div>\n    <h2 class=\"section-title\">Six mistakes in Brazilian litigation strategy<\/h2>\n    <div class=\"mistakes-grid\">\n\n      <div class=\"mistake-card\">\n        <div class=\"mistake-num\">01<\/div>\n        <div class=\"mistake-body\">\n          <h4>Applying common law litigation assumptions<\/h4>\n          <p>The most consequential mistake is assuming that Brazilian litigation works like litigation at home. Parties accustomed to common law systems routinely underestimate the importance of documentary evidence, overestimate the value of witness testimony, expect discovery that does not exist, and misread the economics of settlement. Every strategic decision in a Brazilian dispute must be made against the background of the Brazilian rules, not the rules of the home jurisdiction.<\/p>\n        <\/div>\n      <\/div>\n\n      <div class=\"mistake-card\">\n        <div class=\"mistake-num\">02<\/div>\n        <div class=\"mistake-body\">\n          <h4>Failing to build a documentary record before the dispute arises<\/h4>\n          <p>Because there is no discovery in Brazil and documents cannot be compelled from the other side without a separate action, a party that has not maintained systematic contemporaneous documentation of a commercial relationship will be unable to obtain it once litigation begins. Contracts, correspondence, meeting records, approvals, invoices and performance records must be preserved throughout the life of the relationship. Poor record-keeping is a structural weakness that cannot be remedied after the dispute has arisen.<\/p>\n        <\/div>\n      <\/div>\n\n      <div class=\"mistake-card\">\n        <div class=\"mistake-num\">03<\/div>\n        <div class=\"mistake-body\">\n          <h4>Not including two witnesses on commercial contracts<\/h4>\n          <p>A commercial contract signed by two witnesses (identified by name and CPF number) is an extrajudicial enforceable instrument under the CPC. This means that in the event of non-payment or breach, the creditor can file enforcement proceedings directly and the debtor must provide security within three business days of service. Omitting witnesses from contracts eliminates this advantage and forces the creditor into slower ordinary civil proceedings to obtain a judgment before enforcement can begin.<\/p>\n        <\/div>\n      <\/div>\n\n      <div class=\"mistake-card\">\n        <div class=\"mistake-num\">04<\/div>\n        <div class=\"mistake-body\">\n          <h4>Expecting settlement offers to affect costs<\/h4>\n          <p>In common law jurisdictions, a formal offer to settle that is not beaten by the eventual judgment typically shifts costs against the party that refused it. No equivalent mechanism exists in Brazilian procedure. The <em>sucumb\u00eancia<\/em> award is determined solely by the outcome of the litigation, not by the conduct of the parties during settlement negotiations. A party that makes a generous settlement offer in Brazil gains no procedural advantage if the offer is refused and litigation continues.<\/p>\n        <\/div>\n      <\/div>\n\n      <div class=\"mistake-card\">\n        <div class=\"mistake-num\">05<\/div>\n        <div class=\"mistake-body\">\n          <h4>Underestimating how long proceedings will take<\/h4>\n          <p>Business decisions about whether to litigate in Brazil must account for realistic timelines. A dispute that settles in 18 months in an Australian court or an international arbitration can take 5\u201310 years through the Brazilian court system, including appeals. This timeline affects cash flow, management distraction, the commercial viability of the underlying claim and the likelihood of the defendant remaining solvent. Litigation in Brazil must be planned as a long-term commitment, not a short-term recovery mechanism.<\/p>\n        <\/div>\n      <\/div>\n\n      <div class=\"mistake-card\">\n        <div class=\"mistake-num\">06<\/div>\n        <div class=\"mistake-body\">\n          <h4>Choosing litigation over arbitration for complex commercial disputes<\/h4>\n          <p>For commercial parties with the ability to agree an arbitration clause, the choice between court litigation and arbitration in Brazil is not primarily a question of principle but of practical outcome. Arbitration typically delivers a decision in 12\u201324 months, with technical expertise, confidentiality and finality. Court proceedings of equivalent complexity take many times longer. Unless the dispute involves consumer rights, employment or other non-arbitrable subject matter, arbitration should be the default choice for contracts with significant Brazilian commercial counterparties.<\/p>\n        <\/div>\n      <\/div>\n\n    <\/div>\n  <\/div>\n<\/section>\n\n<!-- FURTHER ISSUES -->\n<section class=\"further-section\">\n  <div class=\"section-inner\">\n    <div class=\"section-label\">Further Issues<\/div>\n    <h2 class=\"section-title\">Class actions, consumer disputes and public interest litigation<\/h2>\n    <div class=\"further-grid\">\n\n      <div class=\"further-card\">\n        <div class=\"update-tag\">Collective Actions<\/div>\n        <h3>Class actions and collective proceedings (<em>a\u00e7\u00e3o civil p\u00fablica<\/em>)<\/h3>\n        <p>Brazil has a well-developed framework for collective litigation. The <em>a\u00e7\u00e3o civil p\u00fablica<\/em> (public civil action) allows the Public Prosecutor\u2019s Office (<em>Minist\u00e9rio P\u00fablico<\/em>), public defenders, associations and certain other entities to bring proceedings on behalf of diffuse or collective interests. Consumer rights, environmental damage and antitrust violations are the most common subject areas.<\/p>\n        <p>The Brazilian Consumer Protection Code (<a href=\"https:\/\/www.planalto.gov.br\/ccivil_03\/leis\/l8078compilado.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Law 8,078\/1990<\/a>) also provides for collective consumer claims. Companies with significant consumer-facing operations in Brazil should be aware that class-action risk is a real and active feature of the litigation landscape, particularly in financial services, telecommunications, insurance and utilities.<\/p>\n      <\/div>\n\n      <div class=\"further-card\">\n        <div class=\"update-tag\">Consumer Law<\/div>\n        <h3>Consumer disputes and the <em>C\u00f3digo de Defesa do Consumidor<\/em><\/h3>\n        <p>The Brazilian Consumer Protection Code (<strong>CDC<\/strong>) imposes strict liability on suppliers for defective products and services, and is applied with considerable vigour by both courts and consumer protection agencies. The CDC reverses the burden of proof in favour of the consumer in many situations and permits forum choice by the consumer regardless of contract clauses.<\/p>\n        <p>Consumer disputes are frequently filed in the <em>Juizados Especiais<\/em> (Special Civil Courts), which operate a simplified, faster procedure. For companies operating in Brazil, the CDC represents one of the most significant sources of litigation exposure, and compliance from the product or service design stage is far more effective than litigation after the fact. The <em>Procon<\/em> administrative system also provides a regulatory enforcement mechanism that operates in parallel with civil proceedings.<\/p>\n      <\/div>\n\n      <div class=\"further-card\">\n        <div class=\"caution-tag\">Tax Disputes<\/div>\n        <h3>Tax litigation: administrative and judicial phases<\/h3>\n        <p>Brazilian tax disputes operate through a two-phase system. The first phase is an administrative challenge before the Federal Revenue Service\u2019s internal appeals body, the <em>Conselho Administrativo de Recursos Fiscais<\/em> (<strong>CARF<\/strong>), for federal tax assessments. CARF proceedings can take several years but are free of charge and do not require judicial intervention. Only if the CARF decision is adverse, or if the taxpayer prefers to bypass the administrative phase, does the dispute proceed to the courts.<\/p>\n        <p>Judicial tax disputes in Brazil are among the most complex and high-value in the system. The tax uncertainty created by the frequency of legislative change, the retroactive application of STF and STJ decisions, and the scale of tax assessments means that tax litigation is a permanent feature of the corporate landscape for any business with significant Brazilian operations.<\/p>\n      <\/div>\n\n      <div class=\"further-card\">\n        <div class=\"new-tag\">Anti-corruption<\/div>\n        <h3>Anti-corruption proceedings and leniency agreements<\/h3>\n        <p>The Brazilian Anti-Corruption Act (<a href=\"https:\/\/www.planalto.gov.br\/ccivil_03\/_ato2011-2014\/2013\/lei\/l12846.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Law 12,846\/2013<\/a>) imposes strict liability on legal entities for corrupt acts against domestic and foreign public administration. Administrative fines can reach 20% of gross annual revenue. The Act operates alongside the criminal anti-corruption framework and the <em>Lei da A\u00e7\u00e3o de Improbidade Administrativa<\/em> for public officials.<\/p>\n        <p>The leniency agreement (<em>acordo de leni\u00eancia<\/em>) mechanism under the Anti-Corruption Act allows companies to cooperate with authorities in exchange for reduced penalties. Leniency agreements are negotiated with the <em>Controladoria-Geral da Uni\u00e3o<\/em> (<strong>CGU<\/strong>) for federal matters and with state equivalents. Companies facing investigation under the Act should obtain Brazilian legal advice at the earliest possible stage.<\/p>\n      <\/div>\n\n    <\/div>\n  <\/div>\n<\/section>\n\n<!-- TEAM -->\n<section class=\"team-section\">\n  <div class=\"team-inner\">\n    <div>\n      <a href=\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/fabianodeffenti\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" style=\"display:block;\">\n        <img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.deqlaw.com.br\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/Fabiano-300x350-1.png\" alt=\"Fabiano Deffenti, Senior Partner\" style=\"width:100%;display:block;\" \/>\n      <\/a>\n      <div style=\"padding:16px 4px 0;display:flex;align-items:center;gap:14px;\">\n        <div>\n          <strong style=\"display:block;font-size:17px;font-weight:600;color:var(--navy);margin-bottom:2px;\">Fabiano Deffenti<\/strong>\n          <span style=\"font-size:14px;color:var(--gold);\">Senior Partner<\/span>\n        <\/div>\n        <a href=\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/fabianodeffenti\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" style=\"display:inline-block;flex-shrink:0;\">\n          <svg xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"36\" height=\"36\" viewBox=\"0 0 32 32\">\n            <rect width=\"32\" height=\"32\" rx=\"6\" fill=\"#cb8569\"\/>\n            <path fill=\"#fff\" d=\"M11.5 13.5h-3v9h3v-9zm-1.5-1a1.75 1.75 0 1 0 0-3.5 1.75 1.75 0 0 0 0 3.5zm11 1c-1.6 0-2.6.8-3 1.5v-1.5h-3v9h3v-4.5c0-1.4.7-2.2 1.9-2.2 1.1 0 1.6.8 1.6 2.2v4.5h3v-5c0-2.8-1.5-4-3.5-4z\"\/>\n          <\/svg>\n        <\/a>\n      <\/div>\n    <\/div>\n    <div class=\"team-content\">\n      <div class=\"section-label\">Our Team<\/div>\n      <h2 class=\"section-title\" style=\"font-size:34px;\">Dispute resolution experience across Brazilian and common law systems<\/h2>\n      <p>Fabiano Deffenti is Senior Partner at D&Q Lawyers and is admitted to practise in Brazil and Australia, enrolled as a barrister and solicitor in New Zealand, and licensed as an attorney-at-law in New York. He is co-editor of <em>Introduction to Brazilian Law<\/em> (Wolters Kluwer) and editor of <a href=\"https:\/\/lawsofbrazil.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">LawsofBrazil.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n      <p>His cross-jurisdictional background makes him particularly well placed to advise parties navigating Brazilian dispute resolution from a common law context, including on litigation strategy, arbitration clause drafting, enforcement of foreign judgments in Brazil, and the recognition of Brazilian judgments abroad.<\/p>\n      <p>The original article on which this guide is based is available at <a href=\"https:\/\/lawsofbrazil.com\/litigation-in-brazil-unusual-features\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">LawsofBrazil<\/a>.<\/p>\n      <a href=\"https:\/\/www.deqlaw.com.br\/en\/profissionais\/\" class=\"btn-primary\" style=\"text-decoration:none;\">Meet the Full Team<\/a>\n    <\/div>\n  <\/div>\n<\/section>\n\n<!-- CTA -->\n<section class=\"cta-section\" id=\"contact\">\n  <div class=\"cta-inner\">\n    <div class=\"section-label\" style=\"justify-content:center;\">Get Advice<\/div>\n    <h2>Facing a dispute in Brazil?<\/h2>\n    <p>Whether you are assessing whether to commence proceedings, structuring a contract to improve enforceability, or managing a cross-border dispute involving a Brazilian party, early advice is the most effective investment.<\/p>\n\n    <div class=\"cta-checklist\">\n      <h4>Litigation readiness checklist<\/h4>\n      <ul>\n        <li>Limitation period identified and confirmed as alive<\/li>\n        <li>Documentary record reviewed and gaps identified<\/li>\n        <li>Contract witnesses present (if applicable)<\/li>\n        <li>Arbitration clause assessed for scope and validity<\/li>\n        <li>Choice of forum clause reviewed against current STJ case law<\/li>\n        <li>Foreign judgment or award: homologation pathway assessed<\/li>\n        <li>Interim relief options considered (including <em>penhora online<\/em>)<\/li>\n        <li>Realistic timeline and cost modelled against commercial objectives<\/li>\n      <\/ul>\n    <\/div>\n\n    <p>Initial enquiries are always welcome.<\/p>\n    <div style=\"margin-top:20px;padding:36px 44px;background:var(--warm-white);border:1px solid var(--border);display:inline-block;min-width:320px;\">\n      <div style=\"font-size:12px;text-transform:uppercase;letter-spacing:2px;color:var(--text-light);margin-bottom:12px;\">Send us an email<\/div>\n      <a href=\"mailto:info@deqlaw.com.br\" style=\"font-size:24px;font-weight:300;color:var(--navy);text-decoration:none;display:block;margin-bottom:16px;\">info@deqlaw.com.br<\/a>\n      <a href=\"mailto:info@deqlaw.com.br\" class=\"btn-primary\" style=\"text-decoration:none;\">Send Email Now<\/a>\n    <\/div>\n    <p style=\"margin-top:20px;font-size:13px;color:var(--text-light);\">This page is a summary only and does not constitute legal advice. For further background on Brazilian dispute resolution, visit <a href=\"https:\/\/lawsofbrazil.com\/dispute-resolution\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" style=\"color:var(--gold);\">LawsofBrazil<\/a>.<\/p>\n  <\/div>\n<\/section>\n\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><!-- cell_inner --><\/div><!-- cell --><\/div><!-- port --><\/section>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-5970","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.5 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Litigating in Brazil - D&amp;Q Lawyers<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Litigating in Brazil is very different from litigating in common law jurisdictions. This guide explains how Brazilian civil litigation works.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/deqlaw.com.br\/en\/litigating-in-brazil\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Litigating in Brazil - D&amp;Q Lawyers\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Litigating in Brazil is very different from litigating in common law jurisdictions. This guide explains how Brazilian civil litigation works.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/deqlaw.com.br\/en\/litigating-in-brazil\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"D&amp;Q Lawyers\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-04-27T07:39:33+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/deqlaw.com.br\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/cropped-favicondeq2-1.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"41 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/deqlaw.com.br\\\/en\\\/litigating-in-brazil\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/deqlaw.com.br\\\/en\\\/litigating-in-brazil\\\/\",\"name\":\"Litigating in Brazil - D&amp;Q Lawyers\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/deqlaw.com.br\\\/en\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-07T02:24:06+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-04-27T07:39:33+00:00\",\"description\":\"Litigating in Brazil is very different from litigating in common law jurisdictions. This guide explains how Brazilian civil litigation works.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/deqlaw.com.br\\\/en\\\/litigating-in-brazil\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/deqlaw.com.br\\\/en\\\/litigating-in-brazil\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/deqlaw.com.br\\\/en\\\/litigating-in-brazil\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/deqlaw.com.br\\\/en\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Litigating in Brazil\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/deqlaw.com.br\\\/en\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/deqlaw.com.br\\\/en\\\/\",\"name\":\"D&amp;Q Lawyers\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/deqlaw.com.br\\\/en\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Litigating in Brazil - D&amp;Q Lawyers","description":"Litigating in Brazil is very different from litigating in common law jurisdictions. This guide explains how Brazilian civil litigation works.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/deqlaw.com.br\/en\/litigating-in-brazil\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Litigating in Brazil - D&amp;Q Lawyers","og_description":"Litigating in Brazil is very different from litigating in common law jurisdictions. This guide explains how Brazilian civil litigation works.","og_url":"https:\/\/deqlaw.com.br\/en\/litigating-in-brazil\/","og_site_name":"D&amp;Q Lawyers","article_modified_time":"2026-04-27T07:39:33+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/deqlaw.com.br\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/cropped-favicondeq2-1.png","type":"image\/png"}],"twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"41 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/deqlaw.com.br\/en\/litigating-in-brazil\/","url":"https:\/\/deqlaw.com.br\/en\/litigating-in-brazil\/","name":"Litigating in Brazil - D&amp;Q Lawyers","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/deqlaw.com.br\/en\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-07T02:24:06+00:00","dateModified":"2026-04-27T07:39:33+00:00","description":"Litigating in Brazil is very different from litigating in common law jurisdictions. This guide explains how Brazilian civil litigation works.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/deqlaw.com.br\/en\/litigating-in-brazil\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/deqlaw.com.br\/en\/litigating-in-brazil\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/deqlaw.com.br\/en\/litigating-in-brazil\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/deqlaw.com.br\/en\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Litigating in Brazil"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/deqlaw.com.br\/en\/#website","url":"https:\/\/deqlaw.com.br\/en\/","name":"D&amp;Q Lawyers","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/deqlaw.com.br\/en\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.deqlaw.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/5970","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.deqlaw.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.deqlaw.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.deqlaw.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.deqlaw.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5970"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.deqlaw.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/5970\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6010,"href":"https:\/\/www.deqlaw.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/5970\/revisions\/6010"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.deqlaw.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5970"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}