For an appeal to be heard by the Court, it is essential to pay the court costs and the appeal deposit. However, it often happens that the client, due to financial difficulties or some other problem, seeks help from third parties to cover the aforementioned legal expenses. Given this scenario, many questions arise as to whether a law firm can cover this expense.

Court costs are amounts owed by the parties to the State, and the judicial deposit is the payment that companies involved in a lawsuit must make so that the court accepts the appeal and reevaluates the decision. These amounts vary according to the value of the action and the sentence, and the judicial deposit also serves as a way of guaranteeing the judgment and can later be released to the winning party.

Recently, some Regional Labor Courts (TRTs) have adopted the position that only the parties directly involved in the dispute must pay the court costs and the appeal deposit, which may even result in the appeal not being considered due to desertion, if the Court understands that the payment was made by a third party not involved in the process, including the lawyers or law firms representing the parties.

Furthermore, the complexity of the issue increases when faced with the limitation of the banks in which these payments can occur, and currently they are only allowed to be made in two banks: Caixa Econômica Federal and Banco do Brasil.

However, in a scenario where many people do not have an account linked to these banks and most of the population currently carries out transactions virtually, it may be difficult to comply with these legal conditions.

In a recent decision, the Regional Labor Court of the 2nd region – São Paulo/SP, expanded the interpretation by deciding that not even economic groups could carry out these transactions. However, several other Courts have an opposing understanding, accepting the payment, as long as it is made within the deadline and in accordance with the regulatory standards.

In the Superior Labor Court (TST) there is also a diversity of understandings, since although some Ministers understand that the collection should be accepted regardless of who made it, on the other hand, some of the Ministers follow Summary 128, I of the TST, which establishes that it is the burden of the appellant to make the deposit:

Summary 128

I – It is the burden of the appellant to make the legal deposit, in full, in relation to each new appeal filed, under penalty of desertion. Once the amount of the conviction has been reached, no further deposit is required for any appeal. (former Summary nº 128 – amended by Res. 121/2003, DJ 21.11.03, which incorporated OJ nº 139 of SBDI-1 – inserted on 27.11.1998).

Given the lack of standardization on the subject and the legal uncertainty of the issue, an appeal may eventually be considered deserted and not heard, putting at risk compliance with the deadline and the parties' right to appeal, violating the constitutional principles of adversarial proceedings and full defense.

The most appropriate recommendation currently would be that the collection of costs and payment of the court deposit be made by the interested party in the dispute, in order to avoid procedural problems and ensure the regular progress of the proceedings. However, in case of doubts, the Mazzucco e Mello Advogados office has a legal team ready to assist you.