Collaborative practice: training for lawyers at the EDACS (2024-2025)

On September 26, 2024, and again on April 30, 2025, I trained lawyers at the EDACS, the Centre Sud bar school (École des avocats Centre Sud), in collaborative practice (processus collaboratif), as a lawyer, mediator and collaborative practitioner. In this amicable method, each party is assisted by a trained lawyer, and everyone commits to seeking an agreement without going to court. Here are the key takeaways, and the presentation materials.

Proposing amicable resolution: to the client and to opposing counsel

The starting point is ethical. The French bar’s national rules (règlement intérieur national, RIN) recommend that lawyers consider amicable methods with their clients, before or during litigation (art. 6.1 RIN); with the client’s consent, they allow lawyers to contact the other party to propose an amicable settlement (art. 8.2 RIN).

To the client, the lawyer presents the amicable methods suited to the situation, how they work and their benefits, and offers reassurance. To opposing counsel, a conversation is better than an email, to understand their reading of the case and their experience of amicable methods. Collaborative practice is then chosen among other tools: mediation, conciliation, the participatory procedure, and arbitration, which is an alternative but not an amicable method.

What collaborative practice is

It is an amicable process, used before any court filing, based on the contractual commitment of the parties and their lawyers to seek, in good faith and with full transparency, a global solution based on each party’s interests, in four-way meetings called “settlement meetings.” Unlike the participatory procedure, it is not codified: the national bar rules only mention it in articles 6 and 7.

Created in the United States in the 1990s by lawyer-mediator Stuart Webb, initially in family law, it was introduced in France in 2006 and has been promoted since 2009 by the French association of collaborative law practitioners (Association française des praticiens du droit collaboratif).

The collaborative charter and the withdrawal commitment

By signing the collaborative charter, clients commit to seeking a negotiated solution without going to court, to sharing all relevant information, including financial information, not to disparage the other party, and to jointly instruct the other professionals involved: experts, bankers, child psychiatrists, mediators.

The key feature is the disqualification clause: if the process fails, both lawyers and the experts withdraw from the case and cannot take part in any court proceedings, except for protective or urgent measures. Litigation is not an option, and this contractual limit forces everyone to be creative. It distinguishes collaborative practice from the participatory procedure, which requires neither withdrawal of the lawyers, nor enhanced transparency, nor a global agreement.

The tools: principled negotiation and communication

Collaborative practice relies on the principled negotiation developed by the Harvard Negotiation Project (Fisher and Ury): separate the people from the problem, be hard on the issues and soft on the negotiators, look for the interests behind positions, invent options for mutual gain and use objective criteria. The paradigm shift is clear: the other lawyer becomes a counterpart, and the discussion moves from rights and positions to interests and options.

Added to this are active listening, four forms of reformulation, Marshall Rosenberg’s nonviolent communication (observe facts, name feelings, express needs, make negotiable requests) and attention to nonverbal language. Each meeting is prepared with the client beforehand and debriefed afterward.

Sessions

• September 26, 2024: collaborative practice training, EDACS.
• April 30, 2025: collaborative practice training, EDACS.

Key takeaways

1. 1Before any courtCollaborative practice can only begin if no court has been asked to rule.
2. 2A written charterTransparency, no disparagement, joint instructions to experts: clients commit in writing.
3. 3Lawyers withdraw if it failsIf the process breaks down, the collaborative lawyers step aside: litigation is not an option.
4. 4A global solutionBuilt in four-way meetings, on each party’s interests rather than positions.
5. 5Trained lawyersUnlike mediation or the participatory procedure, the process requires lawyers trained in its method.

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.