Part of the AI Regulation News hub.
Brazil's national bar association has adopted Resolution 16/2026, which lets its board negotiate a conduct-adjustment agreement with a legal-AI company before deciding whether to sue
The resolution does not regulate legal-AI products directly. It sets out how the bar's board would negotiate with a vendor it considers to be in breach, and what it will not promise in return.
Bottom line: A resolution of the board (Diretoria) of the Federal Council of the OAB, which says in its own Article 8 that it takes effect on publication. The agreement it describes is optional ("facultativa", Article 2) and the board keeps the right to go to court at once. It creates a negotiating framework, not a list of product rules for vendors.
Who this affects: Companies that develop, offer or sell AI products tied to producing or delivering legal content in Brazil, and the OAB board and its legal department. Lawyers who use such products are affected only indirectly, which is our inference.
Issue date: Signed in Brasília on 9 October 2026. Published in the Diário Eletrônico da OAB on 13 October 2026, Ano VIII, No. 1963, page 2. The page lists 13/10/2026 as the date the item was made available.
What changed: The board may, before deciding on a lawsuit, assess whether to sign a termo de ajustamento de conduta (TAC) with a legal-AI company. The resolution lists premises the TAC should reflect and measures it may include, and says signing is not an OAB endorsement.
Analysis: The text is conditional almost throughout. "poderá" appears in Article 1 and again in Article 4 paragraph 1, and the TAC premises in Article 3 apply "conforme a pertinência ao caso concreto". Our inference is that the real content will be in individual agreements, which this document does not publish.
Primary sources: Diário Eletrônico da OAB, 13 October 2026, page 2: Resolução n. 16/2026
- Instrument (EN)
- Resolution No. 16/2026 on parameters for conduct-adjustment agreements with companies that sell AI solutions related to legal activities
- Authority
- Diretoria do Conselho Federal da Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil; signed by José Alberto Simonetti, President of the Federal Council
- Jurisdiction
- Brazil, national (professional body)
- Status
- Published in the Diário Eletrônico da OAB, 13 October 2026
- Bindingness
- Internal resolution of the OAB board. The TAC it describes is optional. The text creates no direct duty on a vendor that has not signed one
- Issue date / next deadline
- Signed 9 October 2026. Published 13 October 2026. No deadline stated
- Entry into force
- Article 8: on the date of publication in the Diário Eletrônico da OAB
- Primary source
- https://deoab.oab.org.br/pages/materia/1171885
- Editorial Note
- Informational analysis for working professionals, not legal advice. Confirm how any rule applies to your situation with qualified counsel.
What the resolution lets the OAB board do
Article 1 says the Diretoria of the Federal Council "poderá", before deciding whether to sue, assess the convenience and legal viability of signing a termo de ajustamento de conduta with a company that develops, offers or sells an AI solution tied to producing or delivering legal content. The stated purpose is to prevent, stop or correct conduct incompatible with the Statute of the Legal Profession and the OAB and other applicable rules.
The recitals give the background in three steps. On 17 August 2026 the Conselho Pleno authorized the Diretoria by acclamation to take judicial measures against companies that violate professional prerogatives in the sale of AI solutions. The Diretoria then took a decision on 16 September 2026 sending the matter to its legal department. The resolution adds a reason to consider a consensual route "sem prejuízo" of the lawsuits the Pleno authorized. No company is named.
Optional, and no brake on litigation
Article 2 makes the agreement "facultativa" and subject to a reasoned assessment of the case, including the nature and gravity of the conduct, the risk to professional prerogatives and to the people who receive the services, whether adjustment is possible, and whether verifiable commitments exist. The sole paragraph says negotiation does not prevent immediate judicial or out-of-court measures, urgent ones included.
Article 7 closes the loop: if the company refuses, if adjustment turns out to be unworkable, or if it fails to perform what it took on, the board would reassess its options, a lawsuit among them.
Premises a TAC would reflect
Article 3 lists seven premises, to be observed "conforme a pertinência ao caso concreto". They cover respect for the exclusive activities of lawyers judged by the material nature of the service rather than its commercial label, AI as a support tool without improper replacement of the professional, with effective supervision, technical independence and lawyer responsibility, and protection of the lawyer-client relationship, with improper client solicitation and fee sharing excluded.
They also cover professional secrecy and data protection, transparency in how services are offered, with a bar on advertising that suggests replacement of the lawyer or OAB endorsement, adequate human supervision over automated functions, including those that flag risks or possible abusive litigation, and prevention of purely formal arrangements designed to get around the rules on legal practice. Our reading is that the second and fifth premises are the ones a vendor's product marketing would be tested against.
What a TAC may contain
Article 4 says the TAC "deverá" set clear obligations to do and not to do, proportionate deadlines, ways to prove and follow compliance, and consequences for default, to the extent needed to adjust the conduct. Paragraph 1 then says that, depending on the case, it "poderá" include inspection and audit, preservation of records, changes to contractual and fee practices, personal-data protection, correction of advertising and repair of damages.
Paragraph 2 says the verification mechanisms follow relevance, necessity, adequacy and proportionality, and protect professional secrecy and personal data. The list is permissive. Secondary reports that described these items as standard commitments overstate what the text says.
No endorsement, and what is still open
Article 5 states that signing or complying with a TAC does not amount to certification, approval, licence, recommendation or endorsement by the OAB of any system, platform, product, service or business model, and does not waive the body's powers. For a vendor, that rules out presenting a TAC as a seal.
Article 6 lets the legal department prepare the assessment and put a reasoned proposal to the Diretoria. Article 8 brings the resolution into force on publication. The Diário's page header quotes Article 69 paragraph 2 of the Statute, under which the term for notices published there starts on the first business day after availability. We did not work out whether that rule affects the entry-into-force date of this resolution, and we leave the question open.
What we did not verify
We opened the official text of Resolução n. 16/2026 on deoab.oab.org.br (the materia page for the 13 October 2026 issue) and read all eight articles, the recitals and the signature block. Every article reference and every Portuguese phrase in this piece comes from that page.
We did not open the full PDF of the 13 October 2026 issue, the Statute of the Legal Profession, the 17 August 2026 Conselho Pleno record or the 16 September 2026 Diretoria decision cited in the recitals. We did not open any TAC, and we did not find one published.
We refuse to claim that any company has been offered or has signed a TAC. Sweep notes linked this resolution to a civil action by the São Paulo section against a named vendor filed on 7 October 2026, and to a request by the Rio de Janeiro section to join it. The resolution mentions none of that and we did not verify those facts. We also make no claim that the resolution binds any vendor that has not signed a TAC.
If you sell AI that produces legal content in Brazil, read the seven Article 3 premises against your product pages, because advertising that suggests replacing the lawyer or carrying OAB backing is named in the text. If you use such tools as a lawyer, keep the supervision record the premises assume. This is informational analysis for working professionals, not legal advice. Confirm how any rule applies to your situation with qualified counsel.
Source File
https://deoab.oab.org.br/pages/materia/1171885
Open the Diário Eletrônico da OAB page for Resolução n. 16/2026 and confirm four things: the heading Diretoria do Conselho and the 13/10/2026 availability date, the word facultativa in Article 2, the list in Article 4 paragraph 1, and Article 5 on certification and endorsement. Then check the signature date, Brasília 9 October 2026.
A celebração ou o cumprimento do termo não importará certificação, homologação, licença, aprovação, recomendação ou chancela da OAB · Art. 5, Resolução n. 16/2026, Diário Eletrônico da OAB, 13 October 2026
FAQ
What is OAB Resolution 16/2026?
It is a resolution of the board of the OAB Federal Council, signed 9 October 2026 and published on 13 October 2026. It lets the board assess signing a conduct-adjustment agreement with a company that sells AI solutions related to legal activities, before deciding whether to sue.
Is a conduct-adjustment agreement mandatory for legal-AI vendors?
No. Article 2 calls the agreement optional and says it depends on a reasoned assessment of the case. The sole paragraph adds that negotiating does not stop the OAB from taking immediate judicial or out-of-court measures, urgent ones included.
Does signing the agreement give a vendor OAB approval?
No. Article 5 says signing or complying does not amount to certification, licence, approval, recommendation or endorsement by the OAB of any system, product or business model, and does not waive the OAB's powers of oversight.
What can a conduct-adjustment agreement contain under the resolution?
Article 4 paragraph 1 says it may include inspection and audit, preservation of records, changes to contract and fee practices, personal-data protection, correction of advertising and repair of damages, depending on the case. The list is permissive, not a fixed menu.
Related briefings
Sponsored Training
Practical AI training for regulated professionals, built around verification, documentation and a defensible process. See the courses.