One of the most important concerns for jurists, worldwide, is access to justice. In Brazil, the general rule, with few exceptions, is the necessity of the assistance of a lawyer, in the relationship between litigant and judge. This work intends to demonstrate that the obligatory presence of a lawyer, in the dialogue between the party and the Judiciary, is uncalled for. The method used was the technique of legal argumentation and examination of proportionality, as proposed by Robert Alexy. Firstly, the semantics of the norms, that would be the grounds for such requirement were analyzed, as well as the legislator´s intention, the historical antecedents, the exceptions to the rule, a foreign system that does not accept such imposition, the legal principles involved in the problem, the principles of constitutional law, of human rights, of non-internalized international law and of internalized international law, the already well-established concepts in brazilian procedural dogmatics, the legal precedents, the statistical data, the analogical arguments and the reasons of a practical nature. Secondly, the legitimacy of the ends chosen by the legislator, the need of the obligatory intervention of a lawyer, the suitability of such measure and the balance between the conflicting basic rights were examined. Finally, a conclusion was reached pointing to the impossibility of the maintenance of the obligatory performance of lawyers, in judicial procedures. Consequently, the right to litigate without a lawyer, in an unrestricted way, became clear.