BrazilCNJ Resolution 615/2025, approved 11 March 2025 and in force 14 July 2025, governs judges' and staff use of AI including generative models, with mandatory human supervision, risk classification and a National AI Committee. It replaces Resolution 332/2020 of 21 August 2020.
Regulation Tracker · Country · Americas
Brazil
Extensivecivil lawupdated 2026-09-04verified 2026-09-04
As of 4 September 2026 Brazil has the region's densest framework: CNJ Resolution 615/2025 binding on all courts, the Federal Bar's Recommendation 001/2024 and its June 2026 National AI Plan, a Sao Paulo ethics ruling on partner supervision, a steady line of bad-faith fines and bar referrals for hallucinated citations, and an AI Act-style bill still pending.
As of 2026-09-04, Brazil has 4 binding rules, official guidance in 7 categories, 2 proposals and 2 positions set only by case law across the 20 categories in the map. Binding rules cover judges' use of AI, AI barred from deciding cases, courts' own AI deployment, vendor due diligence. In 5 categories we found nothing; in 0 the position is not yet determined.
How to read this page
- Binding rule Binding rule means a rule in force from a court, statute, regulator or equivalent authority.
- Official guidance Official guidance means an official non-binding position from a judiciary, regulator, bar or public body.
- Proposed / consultation Proposed / consultation means a public bill, draft rule or consultation that is not yet in force.
- Set by case law Set by case law means no rule was found, but courts have set the position in decisions.
- Nothing found Nothing found means the category was checked and no rule, guidance, proposal or case-law position was found.
- Not yet determined Not yet determined means research did not establish a reliable position yet.
The rules, category by category
CNJ Resolution 615/2025 requires human supervision of every AI-assisted judicial act and restricts high-risk uses, so AI may support but not replace the judge's decision. Resolution 332/2020 had already barred AI from criminal sentencing recommendations.
CNJ Resolution 615/2025 governs development, contracting and deployment of AI by all courts through the Sinapses platform, with risk classification, transparency registers and a National AI Committee.
For courts only: CNJ Resolution 615/2025 sets requirements for developing and contracting AI solutions, covering governance, transparency, data security and a preference for the judiciary's own platform. There is no vendor due-diligence guidance for law firms.
OAB Recommendation 001/2024 of 11 November 2024 makes the lawyer responsible for verifying AI output, and the Sao Paulo Bar's ethics tribunal ruled on 16 April 2026 that all AI output must be fully reviewed before filing, citing article 77 of the civil procedure code. Courts enforce this through bad-faith fines.
OAB Recommendation 001/2024 devotes a pillar to confidentiality and privacy: professional secrecy must not be compromised, client data must not be entered into AI systems without confidentiality and security guarantees, and the data-protection law applies.
OAB Recommendation 001/2024 expects lawyers to understand the tools they use and to stay current on AI implications, and the OAB National AI Plan of 15 June 2026 commits the bar's law schools to expanded AI training. The Code of Ethics has not been amended.
The Sao Paulo Bar Ethics and Discipline Tribunal ruled on 16 April 2026 that partners and managers must ensure AI use by associates, contractors, trainees and non-lawyer staff is supervised and must review all AI output before it is filed.
OAB Recommendation 001/2024: a lawyer who uses AI in providing services must formalise that intention to the client in writing before starting to use it, explaining the risks and the confidentiality measures adopted.
Federal OAB Recommendation 001/2024, approved 11 November 2024, sets four pillars: applicable law, confidentiality, ethical practice and communication about AI use. It was elevated to institutional policy by the National Plan for Integrating AI into Legal Practice of 15 June 2026, which promises a Code of Good Practice.
CAM-CCBC Administrative Guidance 07/2025 of 17 July 2025: participants must understand AI tools and their limits, keep confidentiality, party representatives are responsible for the factual and legal accuracy of AI-assisted work, disclosure is decided case by case, and arbitrators must not delegate decision-making to AI.
Article 20 of the data-protection law, on the right to review of automated decisions, applies. The ANPD ran a public call for input on AI and automated-decision review from November 2024 to January 2025 as item 7 of its regulatory agenda; the resulting regulation has not been issued.
Bill 2338/2023, the legal framework for AI, is risk-based and modelled on the EU AI Act. It was approved by the Senate on 10 December 2024 and sent to the Chamber of Deputies on 17 March 2025, where a special committee holds it; a plenary vote scheduled for May 2026 had not produced final approval.
The Superior Court of Justice refused in June 2025 to take down an AI petition-drafting site for small-claims courts, finding no prima facie unauthorised practice where the law dispenses with counsel; the 27th Federal Court of Rio de Janeiro rejected the bar's claim on the merits in November 2025.
A consistent line since 2025 under articles 80 and 81 of the civil procedure code: a Santa Catarina warning in February 2025; a Londrina federal court fine of 20 minimum wages plus bar referral in July 2025; a labour court bad-faith fine in March 2026; and a Parana 2 per cent fine with bar referral in June 2026.
No court rule requires parties or lawyers to disclose or certify AI use in filings. CNJ Resolution 615/2025 binds courts, not litigants, and OAB Recommendation 001/2024 requires notice to the client rather than to the court.
No court guidance for self-represented parties. The Superior Court of Justice noted in June 2025 that small-claims litigants may lawfully use AI-drafted petitions, but issued no guidance.
No rule or guidance on authentication or admissibility of AI-generated or deepfake evidence in civil or criminal proceedings found as of 4 September 2026.
No bar opinion or court decision on billing for AI-assisted work found as of 4 September 2026.
No mandatory AI training for lawyers or judges. The OAB National AI Plan of June 2026 expands voluntary courses only. No rule was found as of 4 September 2026.
Official documents recorded for Brazil (10)
- TJPR 9th Civil Chamber: 2% bad-faith fine and OAB referral for AI-fabricated STJ precedent
TJPR · revised 2026-06-30 · verified 2026-09-04
- National Plan for Integrating Artificial Intelligence into Legal Practice
OAB · revised 2026-06-15 · verified 2026-09-04
- OAB/SP Ethics and Discipline Tribunal ruling on partners' duty to supervise AI use (proc. 25.0886.2025.014989-0)
OAB/SP TED · revised 2026-04-16 · verified 2026-09-04
- Orientacao Administrativa no 07/2025: Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools in Arbitrations
CAM-CCBC · revised 2025-07-17 · verified 2026-09-04
- STJ SLS 3.596: refusal to suspend AI petition-drafting platform Resolve Juizado
STJ · revised 2025-06-02 · verified 2026-09-04
- Resolução CNJ nº 615/2025: Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Judiciary
CNJ · revised 2025-03-11 · verified 2026-09-03
- PL 2338/2023: Legal Framework for Artificial Intelligence (Marco Legal da IA)
Congresso Nacional · revised 2024-12-10 · verified 2026-09-04
- Recomendacao no 001/2024: Responsible Use of Generative AI in Legal Practice
OAB · revised 2024-11-11 · verified 2026-09-04
- ANPD call for input on Artificial Intelligence and Review of Automated Decisions (LGPD art. 20)
ANPD · revised 2024-11-06 · verified 2026-09-04
- Resolucao CNJ no 332/2020: Ethics, Transparency and Governance in the Production and Use of AI in the Judiciary
CNJ · revised 2020-08-21 · verified 2026-09-04
Court incidents on the record in Brazil
- Apelacao Civel 1032884-04.2025.8.26.0224 (TJSP2026-08-13 Fine
- Processo 0001601-72.2025.5.20.0005 (TRT-202026-08-03 Fine
- Apelacao Civel 0035599-44.2017.8.16.0014 (TJPR)2026-07-22 Dismissal
- Processo nº 1001467-35.2024.5.02.0467 (TRT-22025-09-08 Sanctions
Cite this page
SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Tracker, "Brazil" (updated 2026-09-04, verified 2026-09-04), https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/br (accessed 2026-09-04). Data: CC BY 4.0.
SafeLegalAI is a research publication by Cognesio LLP, not a law firm. Nothing here is legal advice, and no lawyer–client relationship arises from reading it. Rules change; always check the official document linked on each record and take advice on your own situation. Researched and drafted with AI assistance; verified against primary sources and edited by Cognesio LLP. The linked official documents are the record — our summaries are not the law and are not legal advice.