MEXICO Trends and Developments Contributed by: Fernando del Castillo Elorza and Ana Elizalde, Del Castillo & Castro Abogados
Practical Implications for Litigation Taken together, these changes are reshaping litigation practice in Mexico in several important ways. One of the most evident consequences is reduced predictability of outcomes. As judicial criteria continue to evolve and their application varies across courts, parties must be prepared for a broader range of pos- sible interpretations. Timelines may also be less consistent, particularly in courts that are still adapting to new procedural frame- works. Whilst the reforms are designed to improve efficiency in the long term, the transitional period may involve certain delays. At the same time, procedural strategy has become increasingly important. Practitioners must operate within a system in which different procedural regimes co-exist, and in which oral and written advocacy must be effectively combined. This requires a more adapt- able and forward-looking approach to case manage- ment. In practice, preparation has taken on greater impor- tance, particularly in the context of oral proceedings. The ability to present arguments clearly and to respond effectively in real time may have a direct impact on the outcome of a case. Growing Preference for Arbitration and Mediation In this context, it is not surprising that arbitration and mediation are being used more frequently. Arbitration, in particular, offers a level of procedural control that may be difficult to achieve in court pro- ceedings. Parties may select arbitrators with relevant expertise, agree on procedural rules and structure the process in a manner that reflects the nature of the dispute. This may be particularly valuable in complex or cross-border matters. Confidentiality is another factor that often weighs in its favour, particularly where commercially sensitive information is involved. That said, arbitration is not without its drawbacks. Costs may be higher, and the enforcement of awards
This represents a departure from the traditional model, as historically Mexico operated under a written justice system in which written submissions played a central role. The transition to orality is intended to streamline pro- ceedings, improve the handling of evidence and pro- mote greater transparency. In practice, however, its implementation has not been uniform. The new system is being introduced gradually, with full adoption expected by 2027; in the meantime, tra- ditional procedures remain in force in certain jurisdic- tions and for certain types of cases. This creates a more complex procedural environment. It is no longer sufficient to identify the applicable rules; it is also necessary to consider how effectively they are being implemented in a particular court. In addition, the system is currently experiencing a period in which two sets of procedural rules govern- ing the same matters co-exist. Although not all cases are subject to both regimes, there is a tendency in Mexico to refer both to the local code, which has not yet been fully repealed, and to the new national code. Where properly integrated into case management, oral hearings may contribute to more efficient proceed- ings and enable a more expeditious administration of justice. However, where resources or experience are lacking, and in a system that is clearly operating beyond its capacity, they may give rise to delays or inconsistencies. For practitioners, the implications are immediate. Advocacy is no longer predominantly written. Greater emphasis is placed on oral argument, responsiveness during hearings and the ability to interact directly with the court. This requires a different approach to preparation, as well as a greater degree of flexibility during proceed- ings, resulting in the need for all litigants to adapt and update their practices.
377 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook