The 1st Panel of the Superior Court of Justice decided upon judgment of Special Appeal n. 1,296,317/RJ that the withdrawal of the records by an intern does not imply unmistaken awareness by the responsible lawyer of the procedural acts performed, for notification purposes.

In the case judged by TJ/RJ, the withdrawal of the records by the intern resulted in the assumption that the lawyer was aware of the procedural acts contemplated therein.

According to Reporting Justice Benedito Gonçalves, a mere publication granting the withdrawal of the records does not represent that the lawyer is aware of the acts contemplated therein, and cannot justify the beginning of a term. The document published only informed that the lawyer had been authorized to withdraw the records.

The Justice also stated that one cannot assume that the lawyer is aware of all acts performed by the intern, and it is impossible to assume that the lawyer knew that the intern had withdrawn and returned the records, without a petition, when it concerns a foreclosure of a relevant amount. Thus, the STJ determined that the TJ/RJ should notify the defendant’s attorney about the arrest for the defense term to restart.

(REsp n. 1,296,317. Available at: <>. Accessed in: April, 2013).