#MeToo Movement, Depardieu case… Can defense lawyers still plead as before?

“There is a form of inhibition that can take hold for the defense that we might not have had before” Here is a philosophical subject but one that arises in society in a very factual way: can defense lawyers still plead as before in cases of violence against women? The debate is very present among journalists. Me Nadjet Zaghrir, in Bordeaux, explains: “It is extremely complicated for the defense. Judges are afraid of missing something. This limits the chances of acquittal. MeToo has liberated speech, which is essential, but in the way the cases are handled, it feels like a lost cause for the defense.”

“Form of inhibition” Me Réda Hammouche, in Périgueux, goes further: “In these cases, there is now a form of inhibition that can take hold for the defense that we might not have had before. We are not holding back, we are reflecting. We try to calibrate the speech as much as possible to be optimal in the defense, but without veering into something counterproductive, which would be seen as excessive.”

Experienced lawyers note a real change. “Pleading for authors of sexual violence is becoming increasingly difficult,” asserts Me Lionel Béthune de Moro, in Angoulême.

“We are always on a tightrope, in a form of restraint” Me Edouard Martial, in Agen, agrees: “The scope of freedom of defense is becoming increasingly restricted. We are extremely cautious, especially in the difficult choice of questioning the plaintiff. The choice of words and tone must not be aggressive. It is not about denigrating the person claiming to be a victim, but questioning the truth of the case. There is fear of harming the person and fear of doing wrong in the client’s interest. We are always on a tightrope, in a form of restraint.”

In the minds of all the professionals we spoke to, the Depardieu trial was a turning point. In 2025, the actor was sentenced to eighteen months of suspended prison for sexual assaults on two women during a shoot. During the trial, the sharp attacks from the defendant’s lawyer against the victims were strongly criticized by the plaintiffs’ lawyers and feminist associations. The criminal court itself had acknowledged a secondary victimization.

“New case law” For the first time, this notion created by the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights found its application in France, where it is not explicitly provided for. It aims to sanction statements that go beyond the rights of defense and open the way to repair because they constitute a prejudice in themselves. For the Depardieu case, the fine was set at €1,000 for each victim. During the trial for the rapes in Mazan, Gisèle Péllicot’s lawyers spoke of “courtroom abuse”, which was not upheld by the judges.

“We must maintain a fair justice, not aggressiveness” A concept that is gaining traction in society, but lawyers warn of its limits. Because secondary victimization raises concerns for some about the loss of the right to challenge. “Without going so far as to say that we have criminalized the lawyer’s speech, we have still touched on something important: the immunity of lawyers’ speech,” says Me Alexandre Novion, in Bordeaux.

Referring to a reform led by Robert Badinter in 1982, aiming to ban any prosecution of lawyers for statements made in court. “And that is an important thing for the defense,” continues the Bordeaux lawyer. “To condemn someone for the offense constituted by their lawyer’s statements worries me a lot. If the plaintiff’s speech is sanctified from the start, there will be no more trials.”

“Fair justice” Me Frédéric Dutin, in Mont-de-Marsan, continues: “It seems like they want to resurrect the pre-1982 offense of audience. An individual is sanctioned based on what their lawyer can argue. It is up to the presiding magistrate to police the court. It is up to him to mark statements that go too far. Without that, we do not know how far we can push the limits. I prefer for a president to tell me that I am going too far rather than ending up in a media trial that triggers bad publicity.”

“How do we proceed?” Me Fatima Gajja-Benfeddoul, in Bergerac, suggests: “We must maintain a fair justice, not aggressiveness. The defense must be measured, but the rights of defense must be respected. What I try to do is not to erase the victim’s suffering. But I have to ask questions, to try to get to the truth. I try to confront the victim’s statements with the facts in the case.”

Me Bénédicte Bertrand, in Saintes, tries to summarize the delicate balance that must be maintained: “Caution is needed in how to say that a victim is lying. But it must be said, in a way that is acceptable to everyone.”