Keeping a reliable evidence index without changing how you work

The bordereau de communication de pièces (the index of documents exchanged between the parties) is a modest document. Yet it is read by opposing counsel, by the juge aux affaires familiales (JAF), the family court judge, and by you, each time a new set of conclusions (written submissions) goes out. In French family law, it is often built from documents the client sends piecemeal: screenshots, photos of receipts, forwarded messages. Here is where it tends to break down, and some practices that make it more reliable without overhauling your method.

What the French Code of Civil Procedure provides

Article 132 of the Code de procédure civile (French Code of Civil Procedure) sets the principle: a party who relies on a document must communicate it to every other party to the proceedings. Communication must be spontaneous.

Article 135 draws the consequence: the judge may exclude from the debates any documents that were not communicated in good time.

Before the tribunal judiciaire (the French court of general jurisdiction), the procedure is written. Since the reform that took effect in 2021, this also applies to divorce proceedings before the JAF. The conclusions are accompanied by a summary index of the documents (article 768 of the Code of Civil Procedure).

So the index is more than a presentation formality. It is the record of what was communicated, and under which number.

Where the index breaks down

The difficulties are rarely legal. They are practical, and they pile up with each exchange of submissions.

• Numbering shifts. A document is withdrawn, another is added mid-proceedings, and renumbering everything becomes tempting.
• The index and the documents drift apart. The number stamped on a document no longer matches its line in the index.
• Dates are missing. A screenshot with no visible date means going back to the client, or leaves a doubt.
• Sources are incomplete. An isolated excerpt from a conversation, without the surrounding thread, is harder to present and to discuss.
• The back-and-forth multiplies. A missing page, a more legible version, a full statement rather than a single line: each request is one more exchange with the client.

None of these issues is serious on its own. Together, they cost time with every new set of submissions.

One numbering logic for the whole case

The most useful rule is also the simplest: once a document has been communicated, its number belongs to it until the end of the proceedings.

1. Set a numbering logic at the first communication and keep it for the whole case.
2. Never reuse a number. If a document is withdrawn, its number stays vacant and the index says so.
3. Add new documents at the end rather than inserting them between existing numbers.
4. Check at each filing that the number on every document matches its line in the index.

As long as nothing has been communicated, renumbering is not an issue. After that, stable numbering spares opposing counsel and the judge from hunting for the document your successive submissions refer to. It also spares you from rereading all your briefs after each change.

Documents that are dated, sourced and linked to facts

A readable index describes each document precisely: its nature, author or issuer, and date. That information is easier to gather when the document enters the file than when you are drafting.

• Date every document. Use the date of the event or of the document, not the date the client sent it.
• Keep the full source. For a messaging excerpt, keep the whole thread. For one line on a bank statement, keep the entire statement. You decide later what to produce.
• Link each document to the fact it supports. A document not tied to a specific fact is harder to use in your submissions.
• Prefer a factual description. "Message of March 12 sent by Mr. X" reads more easily than a description that anticipates the argument.

The client holds this information. The earlier and more complete it arrives, the less back-and-forth the file requires.

Tracking the status of each document

Between what the client sends and what appears in the index, there is a sorting step. It works better when it is visible, to you and to your team.

• To validate: received, not yet reviewed.
• Retained: it will be communicated, under a number.
• Set aside: it stays in the file but will not be produced.
• To complete: a date, a source or a page is missing.

Keep your private notes separate as well. A remark on how much weight a document carries, or on how sensitive it is, has no place in what is communicated. Separating the two from the start keeps an internal note from ending up in a filing.

What Prismo Cabinet handles

Prismo Cabinet is software for family-law firms. Documents the client sends from the Prismo app arrive already dated, linked to the facts they relate to, with their full source kept.

The software assigns numbering and keeps the index up to date as documents are added or withdrawn, while keeping the numbers of documents already communicated. Each document carries a status (to validate, retained, set aside, to complete), your private notes stay separate, and the index exports to PDF. Details are on the evidence index page.

Choosing which documents to produce, their order and their presentation remains your call. Prismo prepares that work; it does not replace it. To see it on a sample case, you can request a demo.

Key takeaways

• Under articles 132 and 135 of the French Code of Civil Procedure, documents must be communicated spontaneously, and the judge may exclude those communicated late.
• Once a document has been communicated, its number never changes and is never reused.
• Each document is easier to use when it is dated, tied to a fact and kept with its full source.
• Clear statuses and separate private notes make sorting visible and reduce filing errors.
• A tool can prepare the index. Choosing which documents to produce remains the lawyer's decision.