Amicable resolution and agreed procedure: the Paris court and Paris Bar handbook

During the “Amicable and contractual justice” week in October 2026, the Paris court of first instance (tribunal judiciaire) and the Paris Bar presented a map of amicable dispute resolution at the court and a joint handbook (vadémécum). I contributed to this collective work. Here are the key takeaways.

A map and a survey

The handbook brings together a division-by-division map of amicable practice at the court, a survey conducted in late 2025 of 413 lawyers and 53 judges, and 21 model documents. The findings are twofold. Practice is growing: in 2025, the court recorded 2,234 orders to meet a mediator, 394 referrals to court-ordered mediation and 40 settlement hearings. But the tools for agreed case preparation remain marginal.

The survey shows a profession already won over: 77% of lawyers and 73% of judges include amicable resolution “always” or “often” in their approach to cases. It also reveals blind spots: one third of lawyers have never been trained in amicable methods, and 88% do not know that legal aid provides specific units for these assignments.

A method for choosing the right tool

The handbook distinguishes three families: amicable tools aimed at a settlement on the merits (mediation, conciliation, participatory procedure, collaborative process, settlement hearing); contractual tools that save time without seeking a settlement on the merits (participatory procedure for trial preparation, simplified agreed case preparation); and a hybrid tool, the trial split (césure). The choice depends on the stakes, the amount in dispute, the state of the relationship between the parties and timing constraints.

Its central idea fits in one sentence: a well-advised lawyer does not set these tools against each other, but combines them. The 21 models, 16 from the Bar and 5 from the court, cover mediation, the participatory procedure, agreed expert assessments, including financial assessments in family matters, court approval, settlement hearings and trial splits.

A practitioner’s view

This work confirms a conviction I apply every day: amicable and judicial routes are not opposed; they fit together. In family matters, an agreed financial assessment quickly clarifies property division or compensatory payment issues; the participatory procedure for trial preparation gives the parties control over the timetable; a trial split can settle a point of principle and leave the rest to negotiation.

Further reading: the Paris Bar’s presentation of the “Amicable and contractual justice” week (in French) [link: https://www.avocatparis.org/justice-amiable-et-contractuelle-magistrats-et-avocats-veulent-faire-evoluer-les-pratiques].

Key takeaways

1. 1A division-by-division mapThe court’s amicable practice, measured for the first time.
2. 2A profession already convinced77% of lawyers often use amicable methods, but one third have never been trained.
3. 3Three families of toolsAmicable, contractual, hybrid.
4. 421 model documentsReady to use, from mediation to trial splits.
5. 5Combine rather than opposeWell-prepared litigation 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.