Sanção processual ao advogado

• Ano de defesa: 2010
• Autor(a) principal: Feitoza, Paulo Fernando de Britto
• Orientador(a): Shimura, Sergio Seiji
• Tipo de documento: Tese
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo
• Programa de Pós-Graduação: Programa de Estudos Pós-Graduados em Direito
• Departamento: Faculdade de Direito
• País: BR
• Palavras-chave em Português: Responsabilidade processual; Litigância de má-fé; Advogado; Deontologia; Improbidade processual; Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil; Sanção processual
• Palavras-chave em Inglês: Procedural responsibility; Litigation of bad-faith; Lawyer; Deontology; Procedural improbity; Order of the Lawyers of Brazil; Sanction
• Área do conhecimento CNPq: CNPQ::CIENCIAS SOCIAIS APLICADAS::DIREITO
• Link de acesso: https://tede2.pucsp.br/handle/handle/9098

Procedure in itself is a technical instrument, re-enforced by an ethical component. It guides the procedure with elements which prove the reasonableness of each part as necessary, but linked to the truthfulness of the individual allegations. Truth is a theme which concerns not only morality but also the value of presumed good-faith, an indispensable element throughout the proceedings. The thesis treats of the procedural responsibility of the lawyer in litigation concerning bad-faith. First of all, it presents a history regarding truthfulness, beginning with the Bible, passes on to ancient Greece, proceeds to the Romans, hears the Iberians and considers the Codes of 1939 and 1973 - all this to bring from the past to the present the importance of the truth in any procedure. It is also understood that there exists a procedural deontology in which it is indispensable to include morality, ethics and good-faith as well as the meaning of such words as power, onus, duty, rights and obligation, since all of them occur in the evolution of the proceedings. The same is confirmed as regards the principles. With this basic idea, an attempt is made to theorize the presuppositions of litigation regarding bad-faith, beginning with the intervening party, the litigation and the bad-faith itself. Next, concerning the elements of bad-faith, an evaluation is made of the abuse of the law and its difference from a procedure for bad-faith, followed by the typology which identifies the malevolent litigation. Along with these considerations, the role of the lawyer will be discussed, vis-a-vis his client and before the law, as a way to hold him responsible for the proceedings in bad-faith both directly and in the files of the proceedings which gave rise to the fact. The intention is to put an end to the myth that having made a poor choice of the professional should fall on the proceedings, since this would have occurred as blameworthy in eligendo . To summarize, this thesis proposes to make lawyers responsible for any bad-faith in the proceedings, presuming that, in the majority of cases, the professional responsibility of the lawyer occurs