Judicial Restrictions on External Activities: The Brazilian Context and International Comparisons
- In a recent plenary session of Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court (STF) on February 4, 2026, Justice Alexandre de Moraes highlighted the stringent constitutional restrictions placed on Brazilian magistrates. He noted that judges are largely confined to teaching and delivering lectures, barring them from commercial ventures or other parallel professional activities. This commentary came amid public and media scrutiny over perceived judicial excesses, including questions about potential conflicts of interest, such as those involving his wife’s past financial contracts. De Moraes defended these self-imposed ethical boundaries as essential for maintaining judicial independence, even as critics pointed to high STF salaries—over R$41,000 monthly plus benefits—as evidence that such limits might be overly restrictive. This debate underscores a broader tension between judicial accountability and the need for impartiality in Brazil’s legal system.
These restrictions stem from Brazil’s 1988 Constitution, which prohibits judges from engaging in any paid external work beyond academia or approved educational roles to prevent undue influence or divided loyalties
Under the 1988 Constitution (as amended), judges are generally prohibited from holding any other office, position, or paid employment while in office—except for teaching positions (limited in number, such as up to two teaching roles). This narrow allowance for academia or lectures aims to preserve judicial independence and prevent conflicts of interest or external influence. In a recent plenary discussion, Justice Alexandre de Moraes described these restrictions as extensive and self-imposed for ethical reasons, contrasting them with broader freedoms enjoyed by many other professions, even as public criticism highlights the irony given high judicial salaries and benefits.
This approach prioritizes absolute separation from commercial or parallel economic activities to safeguard impartiality. Below is a comparison with several other major jurisdictions, where rules vary in strictness but generally share the goal of protecting judicial independence while allowing limited, low-risk pursuits.
United States
Federal judges operate under the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. They may engage in a range of extrajudicial activities, including speaking, writing, lecturing, and teaching—often with compensation permitted for law-related pursuits. Judges can manage personal investments, hold real estate, receive book royalties, or participate in civic, charitable, educational, religious, or social endeavors, as long as these do not exploit their position, create frequent dealings with potential litigants, or give the appearance of impropriety. Outside earned income faces caps in some cases (e.g., for senior judges), and honoraria for most speeches are restricted except in teaching contexts. Full-time side businesses or law practice are prohibited, but part-time teaching or occasional compensated speaking is common and more flexible than Brazil’s model.
United Kingdom
Higher court judges in the UK are expected to focus primarily on judicial duties under the Judicial Conduct (Judicial and Other Responsibilities) Rules. Extrajudicial activities like writing articles, giving lectures, or engaging in charitable work are allowed if they do not compromise independence, impartiality, or public confidence. Commercial directorships, running businesses, or paid roles that could suggest bias are heavily restricted or forbidden. Judges may occasionally serve on public inquiries or as arbitrators with approval, but parallel employment remains limited compared to many professions. The system emphasizes discretion and oversight by bodies like the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office, offering more case-by-case flexibility than Brazil’s blanket constitutional ban on non-teaching paid work.
France
French magistrates (including judges and prosecutors in a unified career system) face rigorous restrictions under the Organic Law on the Status of Magistrates. External remunerative activities are largely prohibited beyond limited teaching or legal writing. Any pursuit must avoid interfering with impartiality or independence. Commercial ventures, political involvement, or other parallel jobs are forbidden to prevent external pressures. This regime is quite similar to Brazil’s in its emphasis on near-exclusive devotion to judicial functions, with strong institutional safeguards enforced by the Superior Council of the Magistracy.
Germany
Under the German Judiciary Act, judges—as civil servants—must devote themselves fully to judicial duties. Any side activity requires explicit approval from supervisory authorities and is granted only if it does not impair performance, create conflicts, or undermine independence. Academic lecturing or legal writing is often permitted, but commercial enterprises or significant parallel employment are typically denied. The bureaucratic approval process allows some limited exceptions (e.g., seconded roles for experience), but the default is strict exclusivity, aligning closely with Brazil though with more procedural flexibility for non-commercial pursuits.
Canada
The Judges Act requires federally appointed judges to devote themselves exclusively to judicial duties and prohibits engaging in any business or occupation for profit. Exceptions exist for authorized roles as commissioners, arbitrators, or mediators, plus law-related educational activities like teaching or speaking. The Ethical Principles for Judges stress avoidance of any influence that could raise bias concerns, even in uncompensated roles. This creates one of the stricter systems internationally—very similar to Brazil’s constitutional limits—with teaching as a primary (and often the main) permitted outlet.
Australia
Australian judges enjoy constitutional security of tenure to ensure independence. The Guide to Judicial Conduct permits extrajudicial activities such as speaking, writing, or community/academic involvement, but parallel commercial employment or businesses are generally prohibited to avoid conflicts or perceptions of bias. Discretionary approvals may occur for low-risk roles, and judges must recuse themselves in cases of overlapping interests (e.g., class actions tied to regulatory matters). Compared to Brazil, the approach allows somewhat more flexibility through case-by-case judgment rather than a near-total constitutional prohibition on non-educational paid work.
Overall, Brazil and systems like those in France, Canada, and Germany impose among the tightest restrictions, often limiting paid external activities almost exclusively to teaching to eliminate risks of influence or divided loyalties. In contrast, common-law jurisdictions like the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia tend to permit broader (though still regulated) extrajudicial and intellectual pursuits, reflecting different balances between strict impartiality and judges’ ability to contribute expertise outside the courtroom. These differences stem from constitutional traditions, career judiciary models versus appointment-based systems, and varying cultural emphases on preventing corruption versus leveraging judicial knowledge in society.