Lawyers and defendants are not required to present a service contract in court.

A court decision ordering the disclosure of the legal services contract and the amount paid for the defense violates professional secrecy and the independence of the legal profession. This was the understanding of Judge Pedro Coelho Vergara, of the 5th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Justice of Minas Gerais, when ruling on a Writ of Mandamus against a first-instance decision.

The decision was based on professional secrecy, guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. "The professional secrecy of the lawyer is essential to the administration of Justice, prohibiting the Judge or the Police Authority from seizing documents covered by that secrecy and all those that compromise the client or their defense, thus observing the principle of full defense," said the judge in the decision. According to him, such secrecy extends to all notes, documents, correspondence, and telephone conversations between lawyer and client.

The lawyers filed a writ of mandamus with a request for preliminary injunction, alleging that the first instance decision ordering the provision of the legal services contract and the amount paid for the defense of the accused is illegal. According to them, the order infringes on the independence of the legal profession and the free exercise of defense by the lawyer, as well as the right to privacy.

In this case, the Public Prosecutor's Office requested the 1st Criminal and Criminal Execution Court of the Varginha District (MG) to investigate the value of the legal fees contract and the origin of these funds. According to the agency, the objective was to locate the financial resources of the defendants in a criminal case related to illegal gambling (jogo do bicho), whose assets had already been frozen.

Regarding this, Judge Vergara understood that it was impossible to establish an objective link between the payment of fees and proof of the defendants' criminal activity. This is because, according to the decision, they have other sources of income such as companies in the construction, real estate, and hotel industries, meaning the family could contribute to the fees.

According to the judge, the first-instance decision did not demonstrate the indispensability of seizing the document, nor did it indicate the need for the measure to prevent the disappearance or alteration of evidence to prove the crime. Therefore, the Chamber granted the appeal with a request for preliminary injunction.

According to lawyer Luiz Fernando Valladão, who defends the accused, in criminal matters, the accused of an offense has the right to a full defense, which will be exercised by a free and independent lawyer. "This guarantee protects each and every citizen, as no one is excluded from the risks arising from an unjust accusation," he argued.