That a lawyer is there to defend a culprit, whoever he is, and however dark the darkness of his heart, everyone already knows. Entire volumes have been devoted to this idea that even the devil must have a lawyer.  

​

This podcast traces another path towards this theme: what, for the public, is the indefensible? Where does it start and where does it end? Why do we even need this vague and ill-defined concept? In reverse terms, is everything defensible? The greatest lawyers leave the field of general philosophy to question themselves only as an individual, with their own weaknesses, aversions, dislikes, on the causes they would refuse. Why then would they stray from their duty?

A podcast which no longer aims to explain why we must defend the demon, a serial killer or the defendants of Nuremberg, but to bring us into the consciousness of their lawyers. And, perhaps, to think in terms that Diderot posed, and which we would paraphrase by asking ourselves: is the good lawyer the one who puts the most of himself in the cause he defends, or the one who 'loose to keep a cool head? No doubt we will find between the two, the figure of the strategist of the defense "of rupture", whose example was Jacques Vergès.