A judicial administrator or insolvency practitioner practice cannot be run like an ordinary professional firm. You are an officer of the court, listed on a national register, and every day you handle funds that are not yours: the cash of companies under insolvency proceedings, distributions to creditors, sums to be consigned. The boundary between your practice's own accounts and the accounts of the mandates you receive is the heart of the matter, and that is precisely where the profession's inspections focus.
Our firm supports regulated professions that handle third-party funds (practices, offices, professional structures) from the chartered accountancy firm in Paris 8. This page gives you our concrete view of what makes the difference in an AJMJ practice: special per-mandate accounting, deposit of funds, profitability under regulated fees, and guarantee obligations.
Quick answer: what changes for an AJMJ practice#
Quick answer. A judicial administrator or insolvency practitioner practice keeps two distinct sets of accounts: the practice's own (BNC, controlled 2035 return, often as a SELARL or SCP) and the special accounting of mandates. For each mandate received, a dedicated account records all movements, the funds of the proceedings are deposited and kept separate from the practice's own funds (notably with the Caisse des depots), and membership of a guarantee fund is mandatory. Profitability is steered mandate by mandate, because remuneration falls under a regulated tariff.
What is the difference between a judicial administrator and an insolvency practitioner?#
The judicial administrator and the insolvency practitioner are often confused, but their roles differ, and this shows in the accounting.
- The judicial administrator manages or assists the company during the collective proceedings (safeguard, reorganisation). They intervene in ongoing operations, which means operating cash flows must be tracked mandate by mandate.
- The insolvency practitioner represents the collective interest of the creditors and acts as liquidator in compulsory liquidation. They verify claims, realise assets and organise the distribution to creditors, with a logic of centralising then distributing the funds.
In both cases, you belong to a regulated profession arising from Law no. 85-99 of 25 January 1985, now codified in the Commercial Code (judicial administrators: articles L. 811-1 et seq.; insolvency practitioners: articles L. 812-1 et seq.; common provisions: articles L. 814-1 et seq.). The profession is supervised by the National Council of Judicial Administrators and Insolvency Practitioners (CNAJMJ). Some also carry out ad hoc agent or conciliator missions within preventive proceedings.
Why does an AJMJ practice keep two sets of accounts?#
This is the one thing nothing replaces in an AJMJ practice. For each mandate received, you open a third-party account, or sub-account per mandate, that records all the movements of that mandate. The regulatory framework is set out in articles R. 814-29 et seq. of the Commercial Code (keeping of accounts and deposit of funds).
In practice, this means:
- One separate account per mandate, never any aggregation across files, never any offsetting of one mandate against another.
- Strict separation of the funds of the proceedings from the practice's own funds. Funds held for the proceedings are deposited and strictly separated, with the deposit made notably with the Caisse des depots et consignations for the funds of insolvency proceedings.
- Full traceability: every receipt (asset sale, recovery) and every disbursement (distribution, costs) is attached to the relevant mandate.
The underestimated risk#
In practices that handle third-party funds, the most costly error is almost never an arithmetic mistake: it is a mixing of logics. A practice cost charged to a mandate, a cash advance from one file to another, a lag in reconciling the mandate accounts with the deposit statements. These are exactly the discrepancies a profession inspection looks for. Our conviction: mandate accounting is not a by-product of the practice's own accounting, it is the first compliance deliverable.
Is membership of a guarantee fund mandatory for an AJMJ?#
Because you handle third-party funds, the profession imposes strong guarantees. Membership of a guarantee fund ensuring the representation of the funds handled is mandatory, as is professional civil liability insurance (articles L. 814-3 et seq.). Added to this are regular inspections of the profession, organised under the aegis of the CNAJMJ, and a reinforced professional secrecy.
These obligations translate directly into accounting: the guarantee fund contribution and the professional liability premium are structural costs of the practice, to be budgeted and tracked. The ability to justify at any time the representation of the funds (consistency between the mandate accounts and the deposits) is a central control point.
How do you steer the profitability of an AJMJ practice?#
Your remuneration falls under a regulated tariff: the fees are set according to regulatory scales and fixed within the proceedings, where applicable by the court. You therefore have little pricing freedom. The consequence is clear: profitability is not steered through price, it is steered mandate by mandate and through time spent.
Our view#
The profitability of an AJMJ practice rests on three levers: the duration of the proceedings (a mandate that drags on ties up time without always generating proportionally higher remuneration), the cost of production per file (staff time, subcontracting, expenses), and the mandate mix (file profiles do not have the same time-to-remuneration ratio). A per-mandate dashboard, updated regularly, is worth more than an overall year-end analysis.
Per-mandate steering indicators#
| Indicator to track | Why it matters |
|---|
| Number of mandates in progress | Real workload of the practice and of each staff member |
| Average fees per mandate | Reading of regulated remuneration, by file type |
| Average duration of proceedings | A long mandate ties up resources at a fixed remuneration |
| Output per staff member | Measure of productivity and team sizing |
| Mandate accounts / deposits consistency | Indicator of compliance and representation of funds |
Representative case (illustrative)#
A common case in our files: an AJMJ SELARL consults us with sound practice accounting, but mandate accounting scattered between a sector tool and side spreadsheets. The result: laborious reconciliation between the mandate accounts and the deposits, and poor visibility on per-file profitability. The work consisted of making the separation of flows reliable, establishing a regular consistency between mandate accounts and deposits, and setting up monthly per-mandate monitoring (time spent, costs, estimated remuneration). The bookkeeping and review of the practice's accounts form the foundation on which the special accounting rests. No figure from this case can be generalised: each practice has its own file structure and organisation.
Your activity falls, for tax purposes, under non-commercial profits (BNC), with a controlled 2035 return. Practising through a company is possible: SELARL or SCP, structures common in the profession. The choice of form and of the manager's remuneration carries social and tax consequences that deserve an assessment specific to your situation. For structuring and governance questions, the support of legal advice in Paris usefully complements the accounting analysis.
When the practice reaches a certain size, or in the event of a transaction on the operating company, an statutory audit and auditor perspective may be relevant. For matters relating to the end of life of companies you administer, our company dissolution and liquidation service sheds light on the accounting and tax aspects on the side of the entities concerned.
2026 points of vigilance#
- Separation of funds: continuously check the consistency between mandate accounts and deposits, with no tolerance for crossed flows.
- AML-CFT: anti-money-laundering and counter-terrorism-financing obligations are reinforced for professions handling funds. Documenting due diligence is part of the file.
- Guarantee costs: budget and track the guarantee fund contribution and professional liability insurance as structural costs.
- Regulated tariff: track remuneration mandate by mandate rather than waiting for the final ruling, in order to anticipate files with a poor time-to-remuneration ratio.
Our approach respects the professional secrecy and independence expected of a regulated profession, as for the notarial offices and law firms we support.
Discuss your practice with a chartered accountant#
Every AJMJ practice has its own volume of mandates, organisation and tools. The right starting point is a conversation about your actual situation: number of mandates, how the special accounting is kept, organisation of deposits, form of practice. We offer an initial meeting to frame the scope and priorities.
Updated 19 June 2026. Informative content reviewed by a chartered accountant registered with the Île-de-France Chartered Accountants Board. A decision specific to your practice requires examination of your situation, your documents and the regulations in force.