Arbitration | Mediation
When judges become promoters of alternative dispute resolution methods.
Published on 12/02/2025
Copy link
In the context of a French justice system under tension, Hubert d’Alverny, partner, and Justine Garnier, Olympe Richaud, and Fanny Richard, associates at d’Alverny Avocats, analyze in a series of three articles the necessary evolution of the French legal system.
“The justice system no longer has the means to fulfill its role and is subject to multiple challenges. […] After decades of decline, a breaking point have been reached during the health crisis ” . Observation of the 2020 États généraux de la Justice (Justice Forum).
In light of the increasing number of cases brought before courts—nearly 2 million civil and commercial decisions were made in 2023 —the 7,900 professional French judges are struggling to adjudicate within a reasonable timeframe. The average duration of proceedings has continued to increase over the past twenty years: as of December 31, 2024, the average age of pending cases exceeded 21 months before the judicial courts (compared to 9.3 months in 2001 ) and 19 months before the Court of Appeal .
In the eyes of litigants, overburdened courts are no longer able to deliver satisfactory decisions: only 45% of the French population reports having confidence in the judicial institutions .
Legal professionals, subject to excessive workloads and promises of additional budgets frequently postponed or cancelled, experience legitimate fatigue and discouragement. Such an observation raises concerns about a progressive deterioration in the quality of the rulings.
This critical situation gives to alternative dispute resolution methods (“ADR”) a new utility and significance. From being a simple tool among others in the legal professional’s toolkit, ADR is gradually establishing itself as a vector of evolution and a central instrument of judicial policy: the choice of amicable resolution.
In countries geographically close to France where the culture of amicable settlement is well established, the statistics of judicial systems are striking: in the United Kingdom in 2025, only 16% of summons resulted in a judgment .
Could ADR enable us to achieve the goal of “justice that is closer, faster, and more human”?
This paradigm shift constitutes a legitimate aspiration, which aims not only at reducing the “judicial stocks” and consequently procedural timeframes, but also at bringing the judicial institution closer to citizens by making them active participants in the resolution of their disputes.
Legal pressure and regulatory incentives
Once perceived in France by some as a “thing” or an esoteric practice, amicable settlement is now a policy, developed with the participation of all interested parties. It will be promoted and supported from January 2023 by the Minister of Justice, and already has very concrete practical applications in the role given to judges.
For instance, the establishment of amicable settlement hearings (“ASH”) constitutes an initial and immediate manifestation of this change in approach. The judge may elect to refer the parties to this type of amicable settlement hearing, presided over by another judge who does not sit on the trial panel, does not render a decision, and does not adjudicate the dispute. New role for judges.
Decree No. 2025-660 of July 18, 2025, reforming conventional investigation and recodifying amicable dispute resolution methods, is a second spectacular step forward, giving judges a new role as supervisors of the parties’ intentions and guarantors of fair trial, in particular by guiding the parties towards the most appropriate tool for resolving their dispute.
The judge has the power to order the parties, at any stage of the proceedings, to meet, within a period determined by the judge, with a judicial conciliator or mediator who will inform them about the purpose and procedure of conciliation or mediation. The innovation lies in the power given to the judge to ensure the effectiveness of his or her orders by imposing a civil fine of up to €10,000 for any unjustified absence of one of the parties from the preliminary information meeting that he or she orders.
The objective is not to impose sanctions, but to enable the parties to discover for themselves, or with the assistance of a third party, a quick and lasting solution to their dispute.
The judicial judge, traditionally the interpreter of the law and a distant arbiter, now provides support to individuals involved in a dispute. The judge assumes the role of a facilitating third party, closer to the parties.
It is up to them to coordinate these various amicable tools, taking into account different criteria (whether they are free or subject to charges, depending on the subject of the dispute, the degree of complexity, or the time frame), and to favor one amicable method over another. For example, ASH is particularly suited to disputes that need to be resolved quickly, while mediation is more effective in situations that require time to resolve.
The judge ultimately becomes the vehicle for an individualized amicable resolution: he/she places greater value on the parties’ words, the joint development of solutions, and the empowerment of litigants. The judge no longer simply deals with cases, but renders and helps to render justice.
Gradual change in judicial culture: from a punitive approach to a resolution-based approach
Legal professionals, including the authors of this article, have been trained in the culture of legal fight, viewing any form of amicable discussion as an admission of guilt or a sign of weakness. And this perception, albeit residual, persists.
Acculturation to the amicable approach by legal professionals, as well as the gradual infusion of amicable solutions into the culture of businesses and citizens, requires high-quality training (mediation, conciliation, reasoned negotiation, non-violent communication, method analysis, etc.).
The collaboration of judges is essential in this regard. They participate in this training from the moment they enter the National School for the Judiciary (Ecole Nationale de la Magistrature), in order to focus their practice on seeking appeasement and finding a fair solution.
The importance of the quality of those involved in amicable settlements, their training, and the perceived and actual effectiveness of their interventions also raises questions about the advisability of professionalizing and regulating the activities of mediators and conciliators.
It is worth noting that the Paris courts are particularly committed to the development of ADR: in 2023, the commercial court recorded an increase in the use of amicable procedures, with a success rate of 36%, and in 2024, the judges of the judicial court issued 2,124 orders to meet with a mediator, compared to 221 in 2020, an increase of nearly 1,000%!
The first vice-president of the Paris Court of Justice and the president of the Paris Economic Court, both iconic figures in the judicial world, are actively working to promote and develop amicable dispute resolution, and not only within their jurisdiction.
This dynamic reflects a shared desire to contribute to the effective improvement of justice by promoting alternative methods.
The role of the judge is no longer solely to judge, but to organize the forum in which the parties will discover and construct, either themselves or with the help of a third party, a solution to their dispute. This is the beginning of a success story, since, for example, 75.2% of judicial mediations have resulted in an agreement.
These statistics encourage and validate the actions of those involved in and promoting the amicable approach policy, even if it is too early to see the desired effects on judges’ workloads, the speed of processing unavoidable litigation, and the confidence of litigants in the judicial institution.
The enviable figures presented in the UK make it possible to set an ambitious goal.
