National forum on amicable resolution: the “My first steps in amicable resolution” workshop (2025)

On March 28, 2025, at the Espace Saint-Martin in Paris, the French National Bar Council (Conseil national des barreaux) held the first national forum on amicable dispute resolution (États généraux de l’amiable), “Lawyers’ strategies,” with more than 350 participants. With Delphine Chesneau-Moukarzel and Alizée Lassalle, I led the workshop “My first steps in amicable resolution,” designed for lawyers new to these methods. Here are the key takeaways, and the presentation materials.

A simple goal: knowing how to choose

The learning goal was clear: by the end of the workshop, each participant should be able to list the amicable methods, state the conditions for using them and identify the one or ones best suited to a given case. We split the roles: Delphine Chesneau-Moukarzel presented mediation and conciliation, Alizée Lassalle the amicable settlement hearing and the split trial, and I covered collaborative practice and the participatory procedure.

The context came first: the amicable resolution policy launched by the Ministry of Justice, the report of the “Ambassadors of amicable resolution” submitted on June 25, 2024, which notes a need for training and a lack of central coordination, and the profession’s ethical rules, which recommend that lawyers consider amicable methods with their clients (art. 6.1 of the national bar rules, RIN).

Spotting cases suited to amicable resolution

Some signs favor an amicable method: a case with strong emotional content, needs broader than the legal framework, multiple proceedings between the same parties, an ill-fitting rule of law, or parties who will keep dealing with each other, within a family, as neighbors or as business partners. Others weigh against it: a legal ruling is needed, public policy is at stake, there is a clear imbalance between the parties, or economic, psychological or physical violence. And always, the client’s instructions.

To propose amicable resolution, the lawyer identifies the opportunity, presents the options, explains how the process will actually unfold and reassures the client. With opposing counsel, a conversation works better than an email, to share their view of the case and their experience of amicable methods.

My part: the methods we use least, wrongly

Collaborative practice (processus collaboratif) and the participatory procedure (procédure participative) have much in common: two lawyers, four-way meetings, a framework agreement, jointly appointed experts, confidential negotiations and an agreement that can be approved by the court. They differ on the essentials: the participatory procedure requires neither withdrawal of the lawyers, nor enhanced transparency, nor the absence of proceedings, nor a global agreement. One is a codified procedure, the other a structured process based on principled negotiation.

Collaborative practice starts before any court filing. Through the collaborative charter, the parties commit to seeking a global solution, sharing all requested information and not going to court or threatening to, and their lawyers commit to withdrawing if the process fails.

The participatory procedure, defined in article 2062 of the Civil Code, has a dual purpose: an amicable method before any court filing, or pretrial preparation by agreement once a case is pending. The agreement must be in writing, on pain of nullity (art. 2063, Civil Code). While it is in force, no court may be asked to decide the dispute, except in urgent cases or if a party fails to perform (art. 2065, Civil Code), and the limitation period is suspended (art. 2238, Civil Code).

The other tools in the box

My co-presenters completed the picture: mediation, a voluntary and confidential process led by a neutral and impartial third party, and conciliation, which is more directive; the amicable settlement hearing (audience de règlement amiable), where a judge helps the parties resume dialogue without deciding the case; and the split trial (césure), which lets the court decide the key points of the dispute so the rest can be negotiated. The last part of the workshop covered practical tools: reformulation, active listening, and model participatory procedure agreements, collaborative charters and agreements to enter mediation.

Key takeaways

1. 1A choice, not a reflexThe right amicable method depends on the dispute, the relationship between the parties and the client’s instructions.
2. 2Signs to look forStrong emotional content, a relationship to preserve, multiple proceedings: all favorable signals.
3. 3Limits to respectPublic policy, a clear imbalance or violence often call for a judge.
4. 4Collaborative or participatoryThe first excludes the court and requires the lawyers to withdraw if it fails; the second can also organize pretrial preparation of a pending case.
5. 5A written frameworkA collaborative charter or a participatory procedure agreement sets out everyone’s commitments.

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.