I am posing a question here specifically about the proper limits of authority to grant a lawyer under Procuracao Forense but also Procuracao generally. In my past experience, lawyers will request clients to sign what seems to me to be very broad and overreaching power of attorney document giving them certain (unlimited) power to act on my behalf. When I have pushed back, the lawyers say it is absolutely necessary. So I wanted to pose this to the group to get a collective sense of what authority is really necessary for two situations:
- litigation under the PROCURAÇÃO FORENSE (Power of attorney for court action)
- representation before AIMA or IRN (general Power of attorney )
. In case of the PROCURAÇÃO FORENSE, the lawyer proposed a POA with language similar to the following:
a quem confere os mais amplos poderes forenses em Direito permitidos, incluindo os de substabelecer, e ainda os poderes especiais para confessar qualquer ação, transigir sobre o seu objeto, desistir do pedido ou da instância, receber custas de parte, ou precatório cheque, apresentar queixas-crime, deduzindo ou não pedidos de indemnização cível, confessar, desistir e transigir, no âmbito de qualquer diligência processual.
Translation:
to whom he confers the broadest powers permitted by law, including those of sub-delegation, as well as special powers to confess to any action, compromise on its object, withdraw the request or proceeding, receive costs from the party, or a court order check, file criminal complaints, with or without civil damages claims, confess, withdraw, and compromise, within the scope of any procedural action.
2 . For a regular POA before AIMA or IRN, the language is similar (grants
the broadest forensic powers admitted by law) but with some alternate special powers relating to dealing with AIMA and IRN, signing registry, getting mail, etc…
I was curious whether this “broadest powers allowed by law” is standard language for all lawyers or if anyone was able to modify the language and still get the same results. It makes me uncomfortable to grant someone the broadest powers available, especially if it is not necessary. I have read on Facebook of some horror stories where a lawyer made some admissions in a settlement that were not true on behalf of the client, and the lawyers said “tough luck”, you gave us authority to do this. Probably the exception, but still…
Similarly, is it really necessary to grant lawyers special powers to “confess and compromise (settle) a claim”? In my experience, normally a lawyer would bring a settlement proposal to a client and the client would sign a settlement agreement, so this seems really off to me to delegate such powers.