When the Bench Becomes a Family Business: Inside Brazil’s Supreme Court Ethics Crisis

Key Points

• Eight of Brazil’s ten Supreme Court justices have close relatives working as lawyers in the same courts they control — and 70% of those relatives’ cases started only after the justices were appointed
• Police found a R$ 129 ($25) million contract between a fraud-ridden bank and a justice’s wife, triggering a Senate investigation into possible money laundering
• The court weakened its own ethics rules in 2023; the justices whose families benefit most are now resisting a new code of conduct

(Analysis) Brazil’s Supreme Court decides everything that matters. Whether a president faces trial, whether a billion-dollar merger goes through, whether a law survives — eleven justices, appointed for life, have the final word.

Their hearings are broadcast live on national television. Their faces are on magazine covers. In a country of 200 million people and 75 million pending court cases, they sit at the absolute summit of power.

Now a question is consuming the country: what happens when their families cash in on that power?

Two major investigations — by the newspaper Estadão and the news site UOL — revealed in early 2026 that spouses, children, and siblings of eight out of ten current justices work as private lawyers appearing before the very courts their relatives control.

Estadão counted 1,860 such cases. UOL found 1,925 across at least 14 family members, with 382 still active. The pattern is stark: 70% of those cases were filed only after the justice was appointed.

The numbers behind individual justices are more striking still. Rodrigo Fux, son of Justice Luiz Fux, went from five cases to 544 after his father’s 2011 appointment — 99% of his Supreme Court docket.

Judicial elite faces corruption allegations

The wife of Justice Alexandre de Moraes, Viviane Barci, jumped from 27 cases to 152, a 463% increase. Their children work alongside her.

Then the story turned darker. Police investigating Banco Master — a bank that collapsed amid allegations of R$ 12.2 billion in fraud — found a contract on the bank owner’s phone: R$ 129 ($25) million to Viviane Barci’s firm for three years of broadly defined “legal and institutional representation,” at roughly R$ 3.6 million per month.

The Senate’s organized crime committee is now investigating, with its rapporteur citing “well-founded suspicions” of money laundering.

Moraes denies wrongdoing. Left-leaning media note that no original signed document has been publicly released. Right-leaning outlets and opposition lawmakers treat it as proof of institutional decay.

Separately, Justice Dias Toffoli — who assigned himself oversight of the same bank’s criminal case — was revealed to have deep ties to a luxury resort in southern Brazil partly acquired by the banker’s brother-in-law through a R$ 6.6 million transaction.

Toffoli spent 168 documented days at the property. He was filmed greeting a billionaire banker arriving by helicopter and traveled to Peru on a private jet with a lawyer representing one of the bank’s suspects.

He also initially blocked police from examining seized evidence. Congressional leaders demanded his recusal, but he has not stepped aside.

Here is the part that makes this story matter beyond Brazil. In 2023, the Supreme Court struck down its own conflict-of-interest safeguard.

The rule had barred judges from hearing cases involving clients of their relatives’ law firms, even when the relative was not directly involved in the case. The vote was 7 to 4. Every justice whose family practices law voted to weaken the rule.

Cross nepotism erodes judicial credibility

Constitutional law professor Conrado Hübner Mendes describes what followed as “cross-nepotism” — a system where hiring a justice’s relative has become an unspoken toll for getting your case properly heard. Lawyers across Brazil privately report that doors close if you do not pay it.

Former Justice Eliana Calmon, a veteran anti-corruption figure, was blunter: one spouse holds political power on the bench, the other holds economic power through the firm. She called it “the perfect arrangement, and one that generates a lot of money.”

Under mounting pressure, STF President Edson Fachin — whose own daughter practices before the court — launched an ethics code initiative and warned his colleagues publicly: “Either we self-limit, or there will be external limitation.”

Judicial system resists meaningful self reform

The São Paulo Bar Association submitted a draft code backed by over 50 civil society organizations, proposing recusal rules for relatives up to the third degree, mandatory schedule disclosure, and a three-year cooling-off period before retired justices can practice law. Justice Cármen Lúcia was appointed to lead the drafting.

But the justices most directly implicated — Moraes, Toffoli, and Gilmar Mendes — reportedly oppose binding restrictions. Moraes complained publicly that judges already face more limitations than other officials.

Nothing described here is illegal under current Brazilian law. Every family member involved says they built their careers on merit. Every justice says they follow recusal rules. That may well be true.

But the structural incentive is unmistakable, and it operates whether or not any individual acts in bad faith: when your last name opens courthouse doors that stay shut for everyone else, the legal system stops being equal — even if every rule on the books is technically followed.

This is not a story about one corrupt judge. It is a story about a system that has made family proximity to power more valuable than legal expertise — and about a court that, so far, has been unwilling to change the rules it wrote for itself.