Choosing software for French employment lawyers: criteria and test cases
General practice software and software built for employment litigation are not compared on a list of features but on a few precise points. Here are the criteria, three cases to replay in each tool, and what Jurisvio covers today. We do not describe other vendors: ask them the questions in the last column.
Three test cases to replay
Enter the same data in each tool and compare the result, the steps shown and the caveats. The expected results below follow the Labor Code texts checked at source (see the matching blog articles).
Case A: statutory dismissal pay
Dismissal for personal reasons, 15 years of service, reference salary €3,000.
Expected : 10 × 1/4 + 5 × 1/3 ≈ 4.1667 months, i.e. €12,500 of statutory dismissal pay.
Case B: the article L1235-3 scale
Dismissal held to be without real and serious cause, 5 years of service, company of 50 employees, €3,000 a month.
Expected : Between 3 and 6 months, i.e. €9,000 to €18,000.
Case C: time limit to challenge the termination
Dismissal notified on 31 January 2025.
Expected : Twelve months: 31 January 2026, a Saturday. With extension, Monday 2 February 2026; to be safe, file before 31 January. A tool that does not show the date before extension hides one of the two figures from you.
The criteria
| Criterion | Why it matters in employment law | Jurisvio today | Ask every vendor |
|---|---|---|---|
| Severance with articles and steps | A figure without its working cannot be checked and cannot be put before a judge. | Partial Statutory dismissal pay, notice, the minimum for a negotiated termination, special payment for occupational unfitness; steps and articles shown. Collective-agreement amounts are not calculated (manual entry). | Does the calculation show every step and every article? Does it handle collective agreements, and which ones? |
| Article L1235-3 scale and null dismissals | The range depends on service and company size; null dismissals escape the cap. | Covered Range by service and company size, six-month floor for null dismissals. Tables published in the blog article on the scale. | Are the tables public and dated? Is the case of companies with fewer than 11 employees handled? |
| Labor court deadlines | A missed limitation period extinguishes the claim; starting points vary with the claim. | Partial Eleven deadline presets with their legal text and a caveat for each, public holiday calendar, date before extension. Working-day deadlines, distance extensions and special regimes are not calculated. | Which deadlines are preset? Does the user choose the starting point? Are the limits of the calculation stated? |
| Keeping the law up to date | The law changes: Decree no. 2026-683 changed the labor court petition on 1 October 2026. | Covered Register of the texts used with the review date shown to the user, automated weekly monitoring of the Labor Code, change log. No employment lawyer has yet reviewed everything: the tool says so. | How are you told when a text changes? Is the date of last check visible in the product? |
| Labor court document templates | Documents are repetitive but their form is regulated (petition, list of exhibits, submissions). | Partial Seven templates: petition to the labor court, submissions for the employee and the employer, challenge to a dismissal, formal notice for wages, settlement agreement, invitation to a pre-dismissal meeting. The dismissal letter is not covered. | Do the templates follow the texts in force (simplified petition since 1 October 2026)? Who keeps them up to date? |
| Case law and made-up citations | A decision that is invented or wrongly cited engages the lawyer. | Covered Decisions retrieved from Judilibre, citation built by code, check of existence, number and date, then comparison of each statement with the extract. This second opinion is automatic and can be wrong; a Judilibre key is required. | Can the AI cite a decision it has not retrieved from a database? What happens at review? |
| Collective agreements | Notice, severance and service are often more favourable than the statute. | Not covered The tool calculates no collective-agreement provision. The applicable agreement is recorded on the matter. | Which agreements are handled, and how are they kept up to date? |
| Court exchanges and client funds | Useful every day if the firm litigates a lot. | Not covered RPVA/e-Barreau and client-funds accounting (CARPA) are not covered. | Are RPVA/e-Barreau and CARPA integrated, or linked to another tool? |
| Importing existing matters | Changing software means bringing the existing data across. | Covered Import of matters from a CSV or Excel file, with column and duplicate detection. No live synchronisation with other software. | Which formats, which data are brought across (time, invoices, documents)? |
| Integration with your current software | Avoids double entry if you keep another tool. | See the dedicated page The status of each connector is public and changes: see the integration status page. | Which connectors are in production today, not planned? |
| Employees’ personal data | Files contain sensitive data (health, private life). | See the dedicated page See the security page and the privacy policy. Ask any vendor where the data is hosted and which AI sub-processors receive extracts. | Hosting, AI sub-processors, retention period, impact assessment provided? |
Jurisvio’s results are indicative: the lawyer checks every calculation and every document. The texts are checked at source and dated, but no employment lawyer has yet validated everything. Details on the employment law page.
Replay these three cases in Jurisvio
30-day free trial, no credit card to start.