Predatory Lawsuits: a comparative analysis of understanding and impact in the scope of advocacy and judiciary

Abstract

The present article examines the phenomenon of predatory lawsuits, with an emphasis on how they are perceived and addressed by both the advocacy and the Judiciary. The objective of the research is to identify how these differing interpretations influence the progress of legal proceedings and the realization of justice. The methodology adopted is qualitative, based on a literature review and the application of the content analysis technique proposed by Laurence Bardin, using legal doctrines, case law, and judicial decisions as sources. The results show that, from the Judiciary’s perspective, such lawsuits are viewed as abusive practices that overload the system and compromise the reasonable duration of proceedings. In contrast, for some lawyers, mass litigation may represent a valid strategy for accessing justice, especially in contexts involving vulnerable groups. The study highlights the conceptual tension between legality and abuse, emphasizing the danger that broad measures may hinder the proper practice of law and the right to legal action. The analysis of precedents demonstrates the courts’ efforts to establish objective criteria to distinguish abusive lawsuits from legitimate repetitive claims. In addition, the study identifies institutional harms resulting from these practices, such as reduced efficiency, waste of public resources, and the erosion of public trust in the Judiciary. The conclusion points to the need for integrated solutions that combine the use of technology, the strengthening of consensual methods, and the implementation of public policies aimed at balancing the suppression of abuses with respect for procedural safeguards.