The new procedural reform: new foundations for conflict resolution

The new procedural reform, which came into force on April 3, 2025, has brought about a significant change in the way civil and commercial disputes are handled in Spain. This regulation introduces a structural transformation of the judicial process, promoting Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) as a mandatory preliminary step before going to court. In this article, we explain the key points of the reform, its scope, and its practical implications.

Organic Law 1/2025 is structured in three main sections. First, the reorganization of the Administration of Justice through the creation of Courts of First Instance and the transformation of Magistrates' Courts into Municipal Justice Offices. Secondly, various procedural changes, for example, in relation to costs or the enforcement process. And thirdly, the aforementioned mandatory use of ADR, which is undoubtedly the most notable change and the one to which we will pay the most attention in this article.

Main changes in procedural reform affecting companies

The obligation of ADRs and the types covered

MASCs are defined as any negotiation activity—regulated by this or other laws—to which the parties resort in good faith to resolve a dispute out of court. From now on, in general, and with exceptions such as filiation proceedings, precautionary measures, or exchange proceedings, a civil lawsuit cannot be filed without first attempting one of these means.

This procedural reform recognizes various forms of alternative dispute resolution, including:

• Mediation: facilitated by a neutral third party, who helps the parties to reach a compromise without proposing solutions. It is confidential and the agreement can be enforceable if it is recorded in a public deed.
• Conciliation: similar to mediation, but the conciliator—an accredited professional—can propose (though never impose) solutions to the parties. It can be public (before notaries, registrars, justices of the peace, etc.) or private.
• Confidential binding offer: one party formally proposes a solution which, if accepted, is binding on both parties. Its confidential nature prevents either party from incorporating it into the proceedings if the dispute ends up in court.
• Independent expert opinion: an expert issues a non-binding technical or legal opinion, but one that may facilitate agreement.
• Collaborative law: a process guided by accredited lawyers, based on transparency and negotiation of interests, which excludes going to court if no agreement is reached.
• Direct negotiation: the parties, preferably already having legal advice, attempt to reach an agreement without the intervention of third parties.

In all these cases, the attempt to reach an agreement must be properly documented in order to comply with the new procedural requirement established on April 3, i.e., as a necessary step in order to file a lawsuit in court. This is essential because, if it is not demonstrated before the court that one of these ADR procedures has been followed, the lawsuit will not be admitted for processing. 

However, it is true that this new regulation does not apply to all matters. Its application is limited to civil and commercial matters, so criminal proceedings, proceedings involving public administrations, and labor matters are excluded from the mandatory use of ADR. Likewise, as we noted earlier, there are certain civil proceedings in which they are also not mandatory, due, for example, to their urgent nature (precautionary measures).

Tips for implementing MASCs in conflict resolution

Given that this new procedural reform promotes ADR as the preferred method for resolving disputes, it is advisable for companies and individuals to begin incorporating these methods into their contractual relationships. Including clauses that oblige the parties to first attempt ADR before resorting to legal action can be an effective strategy for reducing the risk of lengthy and costly litigation. Furthermore, to the extent that the contract already establishes a specific ADR, thereby excluding all others, it will streamline the process and provide full legal certainty to the parties, who will know at all times how to resolve any disputes that may arise.

It should be noted, however, that the Law itself establishes minimum time limits that must be respected when going through any ADR. In practice, depending on the ADR mechanism chosen, this will mean that access to legal action will be prohibited for several months. The aim is to prevent the ADR mechanism from becoming a mere formality, forcing the parties to maintain it for a certain period of time, which ultimately promotes the real possibility of reaching an agreement.

It is also important for companies to ensure the presence of lawyers specializing in these dispute resolution methods, as legal assistance is mandatory in some cases, such as in confidential binding offers. It is also advisable to consider formalizing the agreements reached in an ADR through a public deed, to guarantee their validity and compliance. Put simply, this public deed can be enforced without further discussion, exactly as if it were a court ruling.

The confidentiality and legal value of agreements

One of the pillars of procedural reform is the confidential nature of the negotiation process. All information exchanged, proposals, and documents generated during ADR cannot be used as evidence in court, except in very specific cases (such as reasons of public order or criminal resolution). This confidentiality is logical and essential so that the parties can negotiate in a framework of mutual trust, without fear that the position they express during the ADR may be used against them in any subsequent legal proceedings.

If an agreement is reached by any of the means provided for, it will be binding on the parties and may be recorded in a public deed. In that case, as we said, it will have the same value as a judgment for enforcement purposes.

When no agreement is reached, the law allows for a lawsuit to be filed, provided that it can be proven that negotiation has been attempted previously or that its impossibility is reasonably justified (for example, ignorance of the other party's address).

Practical implications and cost regime

The reform also introduces important changes in relation to legal costs. The traditional criterion of objective expiration is qualified: if one of the parties refuses without just cause to participate in ADR and is subsequently defeated in court, costs may be imposed even in cases of acquiescence or partial acceptance of the claim.

Conversely, if the party refusing to participate is the party that ultimately wins the case, it may lose the right to have its costs recognized due to its abusive or bad faith conduct in the proceedings.

The law establishes a new procedure for the exoneration or reduction of costs, which allows for an assessment of whether the use of legal proceedings was really necessary or whether there was abuse of the public service of justice. If such conduct is found, fines of up to €6,000 may even be imposed.

Conclusion: a change in legal culture

LO 1/2025 not only reforms procedural law; it proposes a profound change in Spanish legal (and even social) culture, aimed at promoting conflict resolution through more agile, less costly, and less aggressive means. It reinforces the role of lawyers as preventive advisors and negotiators, while requiring greater responsibility from the parties before going to court.

This transformation entails new duties, but also new opportunities: those who know how to integrate ADR into their regular practice will be better prepared for the challenges of the new legal landscape.

Companies must prepare to adopt these new tools, thus ensuring more efficient and satisfactory management of their disputes. To this end, you can count on the specialized advice of our lawyers. Contact them here.

Litigation and arbitration area