Legal experts recommend Alec Baldwin STFU

I wouldn’t be so sure he’s paying much mind to either his lawyers or his PR people on this point. There’s a term in the legal profession: “client control issues.”


All of his life has been about PR, it’s hard to resist the urge to speak if that’s what you want to do. I saw the 30 second trailer for the interview and frankly I don’t even want to watch it.

He’s also traumatized. Not the best state of mind to be making decisions in complex environments in front of our dubious press and social media.


I agree with this only to the extent that lawyers will almost always advise clients to STFU, so legal experts weighing in that Baldwin should STFU is neither surprising nor notable. Disclaimer: I am currently in law school, so I’m not unbiased.

When I saw Baldwin was giving an interview, I cringed and thought, “well that’s not very smart.” I also watched parts of the interview, and honestly, I don’t think he said anything that will end up hurting him later in a lawsuit or in any potential criminal charges. When asked directly if he felt any guilt about what happened, he made it clear that he did not, because he didn’t think he was responsible for what happened. The reactions to his interview seem to mostly be sympathetic, so it seems to be, at worst, no harm done from a PR perspective, and it may have even boosted his image.

Those beliefs would make you pretty stupid in the legal world. Most jurisdictions have good samaritan laws, including all 50 US states. There are even 10 states that require you to at least notify law enforcement and/or seek aid for strangers who are in danger under certain conditions. As far as apologies go, as @Skeptic pointed out, studies are starting to show that apologies can actually help deter a lawsuit in some circumstances. They also tend to make plaintiffs more receptive to a settlement offer, which frankly is usually better for everyone than going to trial.


As Emperor of the Smartypants League, I’m sure he knows what is best.

1 Like

And in Latham, Massachusetts, you are actually required to be a good samaritan.

Indeed, everything I have read of the homicide published in the media and on the internet indicates gross negligence or disregard for safety protocols by Baldwin and his executive staff and crew–except for this interview. In the court of public opinion, his interview pries open the case that he actually had no responsibility for the death, which makes no sense to me, but I agree he has probably listened to the advice of his PR and legal team.

I saw it written as “Two lawyers can make a living in a town where one lawyer can’t.”


in the interview, he claims that his position as “executive producer” gave him a say in script development and casting, but not in other production aspects ( probably to include hiring the crew, planning, accounting, financing. Possibly even the completion bond fiasco). It won’t protect him in court of law unless spellefd out in the contract, but people are interested in different things.

1 Like

The somber lighting, the black clothes, the sympathetic listener. It was theatre. It was a staged confession. What’s odd is that Baldwin knows all this. This was obviously very precise calculation, not an impulsive act: he (or he and his team) are balancing his legal jeopardy with his social reputation and future marketability. And, sure, he might (probably will) get out of this debacle without a scratch, but he doesn’t want to wait. He’s a celebrity, and he wants out.

The really interesting (or damaging) tapes are the ones made right after, and before, the interview. Did he show any lightheartedness that can be used out of context? Did he perk up after the cameras ostensibly stopped running? Was there a “Broadcast News” moment?


This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.