The role of the judges is typically related to the function to respect and apply the law. It is believed that there is an obligation of fidelity between judges and their respective legal systems, binding them to obey the dictates of positive law. Some arguments, like the oath, the practical authority of law, the judicial political obligation, and the containment of errors of judgment, are invoked to justify this loyalty bond. But what about the cases whose application of the institucionalized legal standards seems unsatisfactory? When adhering to the law implies an obviously unfair result which can be corrected by the judge? These cases challenge the obligation of fidelity between judges towards their legal systems. It seems that the judge in this position have moral reasons to ignore the rules and achieve the fairest solution. But following and applying these moral reasons is part of the role of the judge? He should do it? Another set of conceptions of the judicial role intends to answer affirmatively these two questions. According to them, the judicial role consists of other functions besides the duty to follow only legal standards. My hypothesis is that one of these views is correct.