Following Gérard Depardieu’s trial for sexual assault against two women, the Paris Criminal Court sentenced the actor on May 13, 2025, to eighteen months of suspended imprisonment, along with an additional penalty of a two-year deprivation of his eligibility rights and registration in the national automated sex offender registry.
Depardieu’s conviction came as no surprise. What was surprising, however, was the court’s order for him to pay €1,000 to each of the two victims for the harm caused by their “secondary victimization” due to the behavior of his lawyer during the hearings.
The notion of “secondary victimization” is not new.
It appears in several recommendations of the Council of Europe as early as 2006, and is defined as “the victimization that does not result directly from the criminal offense, but from the response given to the victim by public and private institutions and other individuals.”
It is also mentioned in the Istanbul Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, signed on May 11, 2011.
The concept is included in the EU directive of October 25, 2012, on victims’ rights, and the EU directive of May 14, 2024, on violence against women.
That’s the legal framework – the texts that address the issue.
As for jurisprudence – judicial decisions – the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) acknowledged the responsibility of Slovenian national authorities as early as 2015 when the criminal procedure unjustifiably harmed the personal integrity – even the dignity – of an alleged victim, creating a distinct compensable injury (Y. v. Slovenia, August 28, 2015).
Secondary victimization was also acknowledged in the ruling N.C. v. Turkey by the same court on February 9, 2021. In a case involving the prostitution of a 14-year-old girl, the ECHR condemned Turkey for “failing to assist the applicant, failing to protect her from the accused, the unnecessary reenactment of rapes, repeated medical exams, lack of calm and security during the hearings, the assessment of the victim’s consent, and the excessive duration of the proceedings.”
According to the Court, the behavior of the national authorities failed to meet “the obligation to protect a child victim of sexual exploitation and abuse. Given the intimate nature of the subject and the applicant’s age, the case inevitably demanded special sensitivity that the authorities should have shown throughout the criminal process.”
Another ruling, J.L. v. Italy, dated May 27, 2021, also includes the concept of secondary victimization. This time, the ECHR condemned a state for delivering a decision steeped in sexist stereotypes:
[The ECHR] particularly condemns the court’s unjustified references to the red underwear ‘shown’ by the applicant during the evening, as well as the comments on her bisexuality, romantic relationships, and prior casual sexual encounters […].
Similarly, the Court found inappropriate the court’s consideration of the applicant’s ‘ambivalent attitude towards sex,’ inferred partly from her artistic choices […].
Moreover, the Court deemed regrettable and irrelevant the judgment on the applicant’s decision to report the incident, allegedly motivated by her wish to ‘stigmatize’ and repress a ‘questionable moment of fragility and weakness,’ along with references to her ‘non-linear life’ […].
The Court also noted that the 7th report on Italy by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women and the GREVIO report had observed the persistence of stereotypes about women’s roles and Italian society’s resistance to gender equality […].
The Court concluded that the language and arguments used by the court conveyed societal prejudices about women’s roles, which undermine the effective protection of victims of gender-based violence, even in the presence of adequate legislation […].”
France was also condemned on April 24, 2025, by the ECHR (L. and Others v. France) in three cases of sexual violence against minors – including that of Julie, raped by several firefighters, a widely publicized case in France.
“The national authorities failed in their obligation to protect the dignity of the applicant by exposing her to guilt-tripping, moralizing, and sexist stereotypes that discourage victims from trusting the justice system.”
ECHR, L. and Others v. France
Though the concept of “secondary victimization” is not yet enshrined in French law (which must nonetheless comply with European law), it is increasingly invoked because let’s face it, it’s 2025 and it’s time to evolve, guys the idea that the justice system itself can be a vector of violence is increasingly accepted in public discourse.
While the entire judicial process is concerned – from the investigation to the courtroom – the Pelicot and Depardieu trials recently highlighted the issue of respect for the three plaintiffs during hearings, as all were confronted with particularly aggressive defense lawyers.
I can only recommend reading the book by lawyer Carine Durrieu Diebolt “Sexual Violence: When Justice Abuses – Lessons from the Pelicot Trial”. It is a short and accessible essay, even for non-lawyers, written by a woman of conviction regarding victims’ rights.
I feel like I’m the guilty one, and behind me, the fifty accused are the victims.”
Gisèle Pelicot during her 2024 trial
Your voice, even your voice is unbearable.”
Your trauma, even if the assault happened, is relative — this isn’t Guy Georges.”
Jérémie Assous, Gérard Depardieu’s lawyer, during the Depardieu trial
The Pelicot and Depardieu trials highlighted specific issues:
- Because they concern sexual assault and rape trials, and public imagination wrongly believes such cases rely solely on “he said, she said” basis (when in fact the judge relies on a body of evidence),
- Because these trials touch on deeply intimate matters and can retraumatize victims,
- And because the defense often aims to discredit the plaintiff, provoking shame and humiliation in someone already subjected to physical and psychological violence, inducing submission and objectification.
Plaintiffs are often labeled liars, fantasists, greedy women, or hysterics, despite the fact that sexual assault and rape are, after torture, the most traumatic experiences one can endure (according to psychiatrist Muriel Salmona, founder of the French association Mémoire Traumatique et Victimologie). Post-traumatic stress in such victims is even visible on brain scans (Gérard Lopez, Gazette du Palais, Feb. 2015). To paraphrase the famous lawyer Gisèle Halimi: they are alive, but dead inside.
This “courtroom abuse” (as named by Antoine Camus, Gisèle Pelicot’s lawyer) partly explains why nine out of ten people who consider themselves rape victims do not file a complaint (INSEE and MIPROF statistics). It illustrates the pervasive sexism still contaminating all stages of the justice system – from police to court.
Some jurists argue that a courtroom is merely an arena for truth and that treating plaintiffs “gently” would sacrifice the principles of presumption of innocence and defense rights.
That is, in my humble opinion, a weak argument.
One can pursue truth and uphold those principles while behaving decently.
If only mistreatment brings truth, then maybe that truth isn’t so truthful – and is just another defense strategy, like the saying: “The end justifies the means.”
Respect and humanity should be the norm, and I fully support the sanction for secondary victimization issued in the Depardieu trial. Not everyone has the decency and humanity of Béatrice Zavarro, lawyer for Dominique Pelicot, who had a difficult task but consistently sought the truth during the four months of the Pelicot trial – incisive, yes, but always dignified and respectful.
A lawyer must act with dignity, integrity, and humanity.
As Article 1.3 of the French Code of Ethics states: “The lawyer shall carry out their duties with dignity, conscience, independence, integrity, and humanity, in line with their oath. They shall also respect the principles of honor, loyalty, equality and non-discrimination, disinterest, fraternity, delicacy, moderation, and courtesy. Toward their clients, they must show competence, dedication, diligence, and caution.”
Article 1.4 adds: “Failure to respect any of these principles, rules, or duties constitutes grounds for disciplinary action.”
And Article P.1.0.3 provides: “If a lawyer harasses someone or behaves in a discriminatory or sexist manner — meaning any act linked to a person’s sex that aims to or results in undermining their dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment — this violates the core ethical principles.”
Of course, lawyers shall have a broad freedom of speech, essential to their role. But this immunity – the right to speak freely in court – is not absolute. It must be exercised with prudence, moderation, dignity, delicacy, and honor (as stated above).
When Jérémie Assous tells plaintiffs “you are lying” or “we don’t believe you,” the words alone are not condemnable – such challenges are inherent to a trial. What is condemnable is the tone, the aggression, the relentless attack, which crushes the plaintiff in that moment.
There are a thousand ways to tell someone you don’t believe them.
Jérémie Assous’s conduct led 200 fellow lawyers to sign an op-ed in Le Monde newspaper condemning his actions.
Frankly, Jérémie Assous should get an internship with Béatrice Zavarro.
Anything can be said — but not just any way. One can defend aggressors without being aggressive.”
Anne Bouillon, lawyer specializing in sexual violence cases, in Le Monde
It is somewhat surprising that the client, not the lawyer, was penalized. Depardieu was ordered to pay €1,000 to each victim for secondary victimization caused by his lawyer’s comments.
The court’s logic is clear:
A lawyer represents their client and speaks on their behalf. The lawyer is the client’s agent and can engage their client’s liability. Depardieu declared himself very satisfied with his lawyer’s performance, implying that Assous acted within his mandate. It would have been different had Depardieu expressed dissatisfaction.
In practice, the lawyer may simply deduct €1,000 from his final invoice – if the client refuses to pay this additional penalty. If that happens, the ruling may lose its intended effect.
A disciplinary sanction by the Bar Association would be more appropriate, as it is the Bar that decides who is allowed to practice and under what conditions – and could determine whether Jérémie Assous breached his ethical duties.
The case has sparked widespread outcry within the legal community.
The Paris Bar Association released a statement on May 16, 2025: “The Paris Bar Council has taken note of the decision rendered on May 13, 2025, by the 10th Criminal Chamber of the Paris Judicial Court against Gérard Depardieu. It reminds that in France, the defense is free, and the lawyer enjoys immunity as per Article 41 of the July 29, 1881, Press Law for statements made in court. The lawyer’s freedom of speech in court, a component of defense rights and fair trial guarantees, is vital to public trust in justice — essential to a democratic rule of law. Courts should not infringe on this freedom by holding a litigant personally responsible for their lawyer’s courtroom remarks. Any ethical breaches must be addressed by the disciplinary body of the Bar, not criminal courts. Under no circumstances should the litigant be held personally responsible.”
My humble opinion: (i) The Bar is always quick to defend lawyers’ rights – which is, in principle, good for democracy, (ii) however, it targets the wrong issue here: the client is held liable because there was a mandate, and the client seemed quite satisfied with his lawyer’s conduct.
It’s regrettable that the Paris Bar didn’t use the statement to remind lawyers of their ethical obligations, especially the prohibition against any behavior that undermines dignity or creates a hostile, degrading, or humiliating environment (as per Article P.1.0.3).
On May 19, 2025, the Conference of Bar Presidents also issued a statement: “𝗙𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗿𝘂𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗮𝘄𝘆𝗲𝗿’𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗲𝗰𝗵 𝗶𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁. On May 13, 2025, the 10th Criminal Chamber of the Paris Judicial Court convicted Gérard Depardieu, notably for ‘secondary victimization.’ This notion was not retained for acts committed by the defendant, but due to the attitude of his lawyer during the hearing. The Conference reminds that lawyers are subject to ethics overseen by a disciplinary body. But the lawyer’s speech – protected by the Constitution – cannot be limited by a criminal judge based on a vague and disputed concept. This freedom is a pillar of our rule of law and judicial balance.”
I strongly disagree: the notion of secondary victimization is far from a “concept as vague as it is contested” – as we have seen previously. It is a principle established in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, dating back to 2006, and it has been the subject of consistent jurisprudence.
Moreover, it was the client – as the principal, and not the lawyer – as the agent, who was convicted. First-year civil law? Yes.
To put it simply: the judge knew he could not convict the lawyer because he understands first-year civil law and because he understands that he has no disciplinary power over lawyers – which is a guarantee of the rule of law. So, he convicted the client – who was the principal.
Impeccable legal logic, and I hardly understand why the Paris Bar Association and the Conference of Bar Presidents are expressing outrage – unless it is to reiterate the rights afforded to lawyers. It is simply unfortunate that these two bodies do not also reiterate the principle that every lawyer must behave in absolute compliance with the Code of Ethics.
Personally, when I follow trial proceedings and witness the behavior of Maître El Bouroumi in the Pelicot trial or the behavior of Maître Assous in the Depardieu trial, I feel ashamed to be a lawyer.
What remains surprising, however, about this decision by the Criminal Court is that the judge implicitly acknowledges that he allowed enough leeway for Maître Jérémie Assous to behave in an unethical manner.
Should the plaintiffs bring the case before the European Court of Human Rights, the question of the responsibility of the President of the Paris Criminal Court would arise. It is the President who conducts the hearing and ensures courtroom order. Simply put, it is the President who literally holds the reins over those speaking – both the prosecution and the defense – under his authority. He lets things slide if it serves the interest of the proceedings and the dignity of the parties is respected, he tightens control if the dignity of the debate or respect for the parties requires it.
He can also call upon the President of the Bar if the proceedings go off track. In this case, he did not – as far as we know. If that is indeed true, it is unfortunate.
The law is not an exact science, it is a soft science whose very foundation is human nature.
Without humanity, there can be no justice – neither in name nor in spirit.
Let’s see whether the victims in the Depardieu trial take the matter to the European Court of Human Rights.
Editor’s note: So here I am in the gardens bordering the Paris Administrative Court and in front of the Paris Administrative Court of Appeal in the Marais district, under a blazing sun, basking in the 91,4ishhh-degree heat – much to my delight.
Chloé dress – Prada flat shoes – Dior handbag – Chanel sunglasses
June 13, 2025
