There are cases in which the application of a legal rule causes injustices. In such cases, are judges willing to disregard rules and make decisions based on what they think is fair? This is the main problem this work deals with. Rules are often general, and one of the consequences of their generality is that they encompass more cases than they should. When they encompass more cases, there is the phenomenon of over-inclusiveness, and when they encompass less, there is under-inclusiveness (Schauer 1991). Such phenomena illustrates some circumstances in which judges will face the dilemma of disregarding legal rules or not in favor of the persecution of fairer outcomes. Experiments conducted on citizens and lawyers indicate that the disobedience of a legal rule was accepted and considered commendable in order to achieve a fair outcome (Schweitzer and others, 2009). Besides, it was perceived that the answers tended to be substantially different when formulated in abstract or in concrete; which was called abstract/concrete paradox (Mandelbaum and others, 2012). Aiming to understand whether the same happens with judges, a reference case was chosen and a poll applied to the judges of the first instance of the Regional Labor Court of the First Region (Rio de Janeiro). The results were similar to those of the referred experiments.