Attorney Fee reference snapshot for Brazil

Rule or statute summary

Brazil attorney fees in civil litigation are typically driven by: (1) the nature of the underlying claim, (2) the procedural outcome (who wins, whether there’s partial success, and whether there’s a settlement), and (3) whether the case is governed by the Civil Procedure Code’s fee-shifting framework, commonly referred to as sucumbência (fees allocated to the losing party).

In practice, the “headline” fee figure you’ll often see in Brazil is calculated using percentages applied to a monetary base—most commonly the valor da causa (value of the claim) or another case-linked monetary figure that the court uses as the reference. On top of the basic percentage logic, Brazilian procedure also provides rules for how fees can change depending on the litigation stage (e.g., first instance vs. appeal) and how costs/fees are allocated when outcomes are not purely all-or-nothing.

For most ordinary civil disputes, the starting point is the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which establishes:

• Percentage bands (minimum/maximum) for fees payable by the losing party.
• Allocation rules for partial wins (fees shared proportionally).
• Mechanisms affecting how fees are handled when a party does not have full right/defense participation, and related allocation logic.
• Rules that can interact with justiça gratuita (legal aid / indigence), which may affect when or whether fees are payable in practice.

How DocketMath fits in: DocketMath’s jurisdiction-aware attorney-fee calculator is designed to translate the CPC-style fee-shifting mechanics into a quick reference snapshot. You input the core variables (monetary base, outcome, stage, and legal-aid flag), and the calculator outputs an estimated fee reference consistent with the CPC baseline.

Citations

Key Brazilian authorities for attorney fees in civil procedure include:

1. **Civil Procedure Code (Lei nº 13.105/2015)

   • Art. 85: the general rule on attorney fees owed by the losing party, including percentage ranges and how the fees are computed using the monetary base tied to the dispute.
   • Art. 86: allocation framework when each party partially succeeds or loses.
   • Art. 87: framework for fee/cost allocation in scenarios involving lack of right or defective claims/defenses (allocation and attribution principles).
   • Art. 98–102: interaction rules involving legal aid (justiça gratuita), which can affect the practical enforceability or timing of attorney-fee payment.

2. **Other substantive/sectoral laws (contextual)

   • Depending on the claim type, some substantive regimes (including consumer-related or other special legal frameworks) may influence litigation economics. For calculator accuracy in a “jurisdiction snapshot,” DocketMath defaults to the CPC-style sucumbência baseline unless you select or document a different procedural/fee regime for your case type.

Sources and references (citation confidence / TODOs):

• TODO: Add pinpoint citations for any non-CPC fee regimes encountered in your docket type (e.g., specific special procedures).
• TODO: Confirm which CPC fee band applies to the monetary base you select (e.g., valor da causa vs. a proved/assessed amount) in your specific docket record.

Use the calculator

Use DocketMath’s attorney-fee calculator to convert CPC fee-shifting mechanics into an estimated Brazil (BR) attorney-fee reference for a typical scenario where fees are awarded to the prevailing party.

Primary CTA: Open DocketMath attorney-fee calculator

Before you run the calculator, identify the inputs that affect the output:

Inputs to provide (Brazil / BR)

• Claim value basis (monetary base)

  • Common options: valor da causa or a proved/assessed amount used by the court.
  • The CPC-style percentage fee is computed from the chosen monetary base.
• Procedural outcome

  • Full win (generally, the loser bears the fees).
  • Partial win (fees allocated proportionally).
  • Settlement (may change the fee outcome depending on timing and how the CPC principles are applied in your scenario).
• Stage

  • Typically distinguish between first instance and appeal/review stages, since CPC mechanics can alter fee outcomes at different levels.
• Which side you’re estimating

  • Whether you’re estimating the claimant’s recoverable fees or the defendant’s exposure.
• Legal aid flag (justiça gratuita)

  • If the losing party has legal aid, the practical payability/enforceability may be affected under CPC-linked rules.

How outputs change in DocketMath (what to look for)

Adjusting these inputs generally changes the estimate in predictable ways:

Practical run-through (example workflow)

1. In DocketMath, set Jurisdiction = Brazil (BR).
2. Enter the monetary base used in your docket record (often valor da causa).
3. Select the assumed outcome (full success, partial success, or settlement assumption).
4. Select the stage (first instance vs. appeal/review).
5. Indicate whether the losing party has legal aid.
6. Review outputs for:

   • the estimated fee percentage band (or equivalent reference),
   • the fee total estimate, and
   • who bears the fee-shifting burden under the selected outcome.

Getting results your team can use

To keep the output practical as an internal planning reference (and avoid turning it into legal advice), pair the calculator result with:

• the monetary base value used,
• the procedural stage assumed,
• and the outcome assumption (full/partial/settlement).

That context is what makes the estimate more defensible for case-strategy discussions.

Sources and references

Start with the primary authority for Brazil and confirm the effective date before relying on any output. If the rule has been amended, update the inputs and rerun the calculation.

• Lei 8.906/1994 (Estatuto da Advocacia e da OAB), Art. 22

Related reading

• Worked example: attorney fee calculations in Vermont — Worked example with real statute citations
• Attorney Fees Guide for Alaska
• Attorney Fees Guide for American Samoa