1

From http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/02/03/hated-ceo-martin-shkreli-told-zip/79757802/:

Shkreli's lawyer said:

"He is not making any more statements. Zero,"

Obviously he's not obliged to say this to the press, and as far as I can see it would only generate a negative response (i.e. his lawyer doesn't trust Shkreli to not say anything stupid) towards him. Even though he's arguably correct - why go public? Isn't this damaging both Shkreli's image and their relationship?

  • 2
    Not really - anything that he says could be used against him in court, especially if he says something that is wrong in the slightest. Besides, it's quite likely the poor guy wants the media to leave him alone. – Zizouz212 Feb 4 '16 at 1:03
  • @Zizouz212 "poor guy". Hehe, sure ;) – DaveBensonPhillips Feb 4 '16 at 2:11
3

Why might Martin Shkreli's lawyer announce to the public that Shkreli's not making any more statements?

To try to get the media to leave Shkreli alone, which Shkreli might appreciate. That is one valid motivation for making such an announcement.

  • The media can always approach him, and Shkreli doesn't have to respond. I don't see this coming as very strong. – Zizouz212 Feb 4 '16 at 1:15
  • 2
    If the media think they're likely to be unsuccessful, they might not be as likely to try. The point of this public statement is likely to try to convince members of the media that they will not succeed and so any attempts would be a waste of their time and efforts, which they could better spend elsewhere. – WBT Feb 4 '16 at 1:16
  • Nah, never mind. I have no idea how I read this wrong. -_- – Zizouz212 Feb 4 '16 at 1:17
  • On closer inspection, I see you were writing just about the same thing in a comment at about the same time I was writing this answer :-). – WBT Feb 4 '16 at 1:17
2

Giving the article a read, I came across a few points:

  1. Leave the guy alone

    The guy did some pretty nasty things, and is accused of having done even more. It's kind of a place where everyone wants to have a yell at him, and ask him questions. Keeping him out of the public would make his life, well, easier.

  2. He can get into even more trouble

    If the guy says something, it can be used as evidence at trial. He may disclose something, or make himself more of a "fool" - undermining his own credibility (if he even has any left), if he were to testify at trial. Worse comes to worse, if something else comes out, he can incriminate himself by proving something, or if he does something else (such as committing assault), he can land up with more charges.

    Basically, the media will pressure him, and if that happens, things might not get pretty. Better keep him away from the media. Any confrontations with the media won't result in something positive.

Isn't this damaging both Shkreli's image and their relationship?

Not really. It's just a "standard" thing to do - keep out of trouble, and let the lawyer facilitate any discussions that may arise.

  • Yeah, you're right about it being standard. I guess this kind of thing is common enough between the media and lawyers that it probably isn't damaging their image. And furthermore I'm not sure Martin Shkreli could possibly care less about his image now anyway... :-) – DaveBensonPhillips Feb 4 '16 at 2:09
  • @user3697163 Yeah, from what I can tell, it's already gone down the drain :) – Zizouz212 Feb 4 '16 at 2:09
  • @user3697163 It's very difficult to find an article about a government entity or a business that is involved in a court case without finding the phrase "will not comment on pending legislation." This is standard legal advice, and few people would hold this against anyone. – phoog Feb 4 '16 at 16:01

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.