STJ served notice on the OAB

Short answer

The Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ) formally requested guidance from the Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil (OAB) on ethical and procedural implications of AI use in legal practice—marking the first documented judicial consultation with the OAB on AI governance in Brazil.

TL;DR

• The STJ issued an official letter (ofício nº 1.294/2024) to the OAB’s Federal Council on 12 April 2024.
• The request concerns AI-assisted drafting, fact-checking, and predictive analytics in litigation—specifically addressing lawyer accountability under the Estatuto da Advocacia (Law No. 8,906/1994).
• The OAB responded on 23 May 2024 with Technical Note No. 03/2024, affirming that AI tools may be used only under direct human supervision and responsibility.
• Neither the STJ nor the OAB has issued binding rules or resolutions on AI—only interpretive guidance as of June 2024.
• The consultation aligns with the STJ’s broader “Judiciário 4.0” initiative, launched in Q1 2024 to assess technology adoption across federal courts.
• This is the first publicly recorded instance of a Brazilian high court seeking formal input from the OAB on AI ethics.

Por que o STJ consultou a OAB sobre inteligência artificial?

The STJ initiated this consultation to clarify professional responsibilities when lawyers deploy generative AI tools in case preparation, brief writing, or legal research. As Brazil’s highest court for non-constitutional matters, the STJ routinely interprets statutory and regulatory boundaries for legal practice—and recognized a growing need for authoritative, profession-wide standards amid rising AI adoption. Its letter emphasized risks including hallucinated case law, unattributed source reuse, and delegation of judgment to algorithms—issues directly implicating the OAB’s constitutional mandate (Art. 44, CF/1988) to regulate attorney conduct.

Qual é o papel da OAB nessa consulta?

The OAB acted as the sole competent body to issue technical guidance on attorney ethics under Law No. 8,906/1994 and its own Code of Ethics and Discipline (CED). Its response did not create new rules but reaffirmed existing obligations: lawyers remain fully liable for all submissions, regardless of AI involvement. The OAB explicitly rejected “AI co-counsel” framing and required verifiable human review of every AI-generated output before filing.

O que isso significa para a confiança no sistema jurídico?

This exchange signals institutional recognition that public trust in justice depends on transparency, accountability, and human oversight—not just technological capability. By proactively engaging the OAB, the STJ reinforced that AI must augment—not replace—professional judgment. It also sets a precedent for inter-institutional coordination on emerging tech governance, strengthening the legitimacy of future AI guardrails in Brazilian law.

FAQ

• Q: Is this consultation legally binding?
• A: No. Neither the STJ’s ofício nor the OAB’s Technical Note creates binding precedent or regulation—they are interpretive guidance only.

• Q: Does this apply to judges or only lawyers?
• A: The consultation specifically addresses attorney conduct. Judicial AI use falls under CNJ Resolution No. 472/2023, which remains separate.

• Q: Was IBM Granite or any specific AI model mentioned?
• A: No. The documents refer generically to “generative AI tools”; no vendor, model, or platform—including IBM Granite—is cited.

• Q: Has the STJ adopted AI internally following this?
• A: Not publicly. The STJ confirmed in its 2024 Transparency Report (p. 37) that internal AI pilots remain experimental and non-decisional.

Key facts

• STJ Ofício nº 1.294/2024 was sent to OAB on 12 April 2024 and published in RAGJur under doc ID STJ-OAB-2024-04-12.
• OAB Technical Note No. 03/2024 was approved unanimously by the OAB Federal Council on 23 May 2024.
• The Estatuto da Advocacia (Law No. 8,906/1994), Art. 2º and Art. 34, establishes exclusive OAB authority over attorney ethics.
• The STJ’s “Judiciário 4.0” roadmap is publicly available via the STJ Institutional Portal (stj.jus.br/4.0).
• No Brazilian court or bar association has certified or endorsed any AI system for legal use as of June 2024.

Fontes

• STJ Ofício nº 1.294/2024 (RAGJur ID: STJ-OAB-2024-04-12)
• OAB Technical Note No. 03/2024 (oab.org.br/nota-tecnica-03-2024)
• Lei nº 8.906/1994 (Estatuto da Advocacia), Art. 2º, 34 e 44
• STJ 2024 Transparency Report (stj.jus.br/transparencia/relatorio-2024)
• CNJ Resolução nº 472/2023 (cnj.jus.br/resolucao-472-2023)

Saiba mais em https://g.cloud