Amicable dispute resolution in the French legal system: the Paris Bar School’s international program

On October 21, 2026, I taught a three-hour class to the foreign lawyers of the international program of the Paris Bar School (École de formation du Barreau de Paris, EFB) on amicable dispute resolution (modes amiables de règlement des différends, MARD) in French law. It came one week before my class on international family law. Here are the key takeaways, along with the presentation materials.

Amicable resolution is no longer an alternative to litigation

The session opened with three questions for participants who practice in different countries: can a judge require the parties to attempt an amicable solution? Can an agreement negotiated between lawyers become enforceable without a judge? Does a lawyer have a duty to propose amicable resolution? French law now answers yes to all three, with nuances.

Since the reform that took effect on September 1, 2025 (Decree No. 2025-660 of July 18, 2025), Article 21 of the French Code of Civil Procedure assigns the judge the task of conciliating the parties and determining with them the most suitable way to resolve the dispute. Article 127 makes agreed case preparation (instruction conventionnelle) the rule for new proceedings, with priority hearing dates. Amicable resolution has become a stage of civil litigation, not a parallel track.

A comprehensive legal framework

The sources sit at every level: Directive 2008/52/EC, the law of February 8, 1995 on mediation, the Civil Code for the participatory procedure (procédure participative, Articles 2062 et seq.) and the suspension of limitation periods (Article 2238), Book V of the Code of Civil Procedure for amicable processes, and, for lawyers, Articles 6.1 and 8.2 of the national bar rules (règlement intérieur national, RIN), which recommend that they consider amicable options with their clients and allow them to propose them to the other side.

Amicable resolution can also become mandatory. By contract: ignoring a prior mediation or conciliation clause makes the claim inadmissible (French Supreme Court, mixed chamber, February 14, 2003, No. 00-19.423), and this cannot be cured once proceedings are under way (mixed chamber, December 12, 2014, No. 13-19.684). By statute: for claims up to €5,000 and nuisance disputes (Article 750-1). By the judge: a party who fails, without legitimate reason, to attend an ordered information meeting faces a civil fine of up to €10,000 (Article 1533-3). In family matters, mediation may be neither proposed nor ordered where violence is alleged or one parent manifestly controls the other (Civil Code, Article 373-2-10).

Choosing the right method, then securing the agreement

The overview distinguished methods without a third party (negotiation, participatory procedure, collaborative process), with a third party who helps (mediation, conciliation, settlement hearing before a judge other than the trial judge) and with a third party who decides (arbitration, judgment). A trial split (césure) allows a key issue to be decided and the rest negotiated. What is said in mediation, conciliation or a settlement hearing remains confidential, subject to exceptions (Article 1528-3).

An agreement only matters if it can be enforced. There are three routes: a record signed by the judge, court approval (homologation), which reviews legality without altering the agreement, and the enforcement formula affixed by the court registry to a deed countersigned by each party’s lawyer (Article 1546). In family matters, approval by the family court judge remains the standard route for parental responsibility.

Start from the country of enforcement

For foreign lawyers, the decisive question was how the agreement travels. Within the EU, divorce and parental responsibility agreements are recognized without any special procedure under the Brussels II ter Regulation. Outside the EU, everything depends on the law of the requested state and the applicable conventions. An agreement reached without a judge often travels less easily than a court decision: before choosing the form of the agreement, check what the country of enforcement will recognize.

The final part covered strategy: identifying cases suited to amicable resolution, proposing it to the client and then to opposing counsel, supporting the client in mediation, and using litigation as leverage. Every court decision clarifies the best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA, MESORE in French); every partial agreement narrows the dispute.

Key takeaways

1. 1The judge steersSince 2025, the judge determines with the parties the most suitable method (Article 21).
2. 2Agreed case preparation is the ruleCases prepared by the parties get priority hearing dates (Article 127).
3. 3Each method has its own logicChoose according to the need for a third party, timing, cost and enforcement.
4. 4A well-drafted agreement becomes enforceableThrough the judge, court approval or the registry’s enforcement formula.
5. 5Across borders, start from where it will be enforcedAmicable does not mean without a judge.
6. 6Litigation remains leverageUsed well, it serves the agreement.

Training excerpts

General information. This account of a talk reflects only my personal opinion and is not legal advice. The cases mentioned are fictional, or inspired by real cases, modified and anonymized. Law as of October 21, 2026.