MORICE v. FRANCE JUDGMENT 41 without those comments. Nevertheless, when making public statements, a lawyer is not exempted from his duty of prudence in relation to the secrecy of a pending judicial investigation (see Mor, cited above, §§ 55-56). 139. Lawyers cannot, moreover, make remarks that are so serious that they overstep the permissible expression of comments without a sound factual basis (see Karpetas, cited above, § 78; see also A. v. Finland (dec.), no. 44998/98, 8 January 2004), nor can they proffer insults (see Coutant, cited above). In the circumstances in Gouveia Gomes Fernandes and Freitas e Costa (cited above, § 48), the use of a tone that was not insulting but caustic, or even sarcastic, in remarks about judges was regarded as compatible with Article 10. The Court assesses remarks in their general context, in particular to ascertain whether they can be regarded as misleading or as a gratuitous personal attack (see Ormanni v. Italy, no. 30278/04, § 73, 17 July 2007, and Gouveia Gomes Fernandes and Freitas e Costa, cited above, § 51) and to ensure that the expressions used have a sufficiently close connection with the facts of the case (see Feldek v. Slovakia, no. 29032/95, § 86, ECHR 2001-VIII, and Gouveia Gomes Fernandes and Freitas e Costa, cited above). 2. Application of those principles in the present case 140. Turning to the present case, the Court observes that the applicant received a criminal conviction, with an order to pay damages and costs, on account of his remarks concerning the proceedings in the Borrel case, as reproduced in an article in the daily newspaper Le Monde, which contained the text of a letter sent by the applicant and his colleague to the Minister of Justice seeking an administrative investigation, together with statements that he had made to the journalist who wrote the impugned article. 141. The Court notes at the outset that it is not in dispute between the parties that the applicant’s criminal conviction constituted an interference with the exercise of his right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention. That is also the Court’s opinion. 142. It further observes that the interference was prescribed by law, namely by sections 23, 29 and 31 of the Act of 29 July 1881, as the applicant acknowledged. 143. The parties also agreed that the aim of the interference was the protection of the reputation or rights of others. The Court does not see any reason to adopt a different view. While the applicant wished to qualify the point that the proceedings against him also sought to “maintain the authority and impartiality of the judiciary” (see paragraph 99 above), this question relates to the “necessity” of the interference and cannot affect the fact that it pursued at least one of the “legitimate aims” covered by paragraph 2 of Article 10. 144. It remains therefore to be examined whether the interference was “necessary in a democratic society” and this requires the Court to ascertain