Matthew Hiltzik
Snapshot
Matthew Hiltzik is an American public relations executive, attorney, and founder of Hiltzik Strategies, a communications firm specializing in high profile clients, reputation management, and crisis communications. His professional relationship with Jeffrey Epstein is documented in released correspondence, business records, invoices, financial statements, and scheduling records from 2017 and 2018.
The April 27, 2017 draft engagement agreement identifies Epstein as the intended beneficiary of communications services arranged through attorney Darren Indyke. Additional records document a monthly fee of $25,000 and communications about Epstein’s criminal history, public reputation, and media coverage.
Hiltzik’s involvement is significant because the surviving records illuminate how Epstein sought professional reputation management years after his 2008 Florida conviction and shortly before the renewed public scrutiny that followed the Miami Herald’s 2018 investigation.
These records establish professional communications and a paid business relationship. They do not establish that Hiltzik participated in Epstein’s sexual abuse, trafficking, or other criminal conduct. No Epstein related criminal charge against Hiltzik was identified in the sources reviewed for this article.
Important Points and Key Takeaways
- Documented professional engagement: A draft agreement dated April 27, 2017 proposed communications and public relations services for Epstein through Darren K. Indyke, PLLC.
- Monthly billing: A June 2, 2017 invoice establishes a $25,000 monthly charge for services.
- Attorney client privilege: Correspondence indicates that Hiltzik Strategies sought to structure its engagement through Epstein’s attorneys to help protect confidentiality and potential privilege.
- In person meeting: Epstein’s May 5, 2017 schedule lists Hiltzik, Ben Sosenko, and Melissa Nathan for a 4:30 p.m. appointment.
- Media strategy: Correspondence in June 2017 discusses what could be made public concerning Epstein’s earlier legal case.
- Reputation management: Communications concerning the book Filthy Rich and its planned adaptation demonstrate attention to potentially damaging coverage.
- 2018 response: December 2018 messages revisit privileged communications during the renewed investigation and public controversy.
- Ken Starr statement: House Oversight records show Hiltzik participating in an email discussion involving Michael Wolff, Epstein, and other advisers about proposed public language concerning Epstein’s conduct.
- Evidence limits: The released draft engagement agreement does not contain completed signatures. The available invoices and banking records provide separate evidence of a business relationship.
Professional Background and Career
Before founding his own communications firm, Matthew Hiltzik worked in Democratic politics and entertainment industry publicity. His background included work connected to Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaign, Chuck Schumer, Eliot Spitzer, and Miramax.
At Miramax, Hiltzik worked in corporate communications during Harvey Weinstein’s leadership. His later independent firm represented political, entertainment, and business figures whose public profiles required substantial media management.
A 2024 Daily Beast profile discusses Hiltzik’s work with individuals including Johnny Depp, Andy Cohen, Ivanka Trump, Alec Baldwin, and Ryan Lochte.
These professional relationships provide context for Hiltzik’s expertise and network. They should not be interpreted as evidence that his other clients were connected to Epstein or implicated in his crimes.
Harvey Weinstein and the 2017 Crisis
In reporting about Hiltzik’s earlier career, The Daily Beast states that Weinstein sought his communications advice in 2017 as major sexual misconduct investigations approached publication. Hiltzik said he declined to become part of Weinstein’s communications team.
The timing overlaps with Hiltzik Strategies’ documented work for Epstein. That overlap is relevant to a history of crisis communications but does not establish coordination between the Weinstein and Epstein matters.
The April 2017 Engagement Through Darren Indyke
The draft engagement agreement EFTA00583908, dated as of April 27, 2017, identifies Darren K. Indyke, PLLC as the proposed contracting party for communications services benefiting Jeffrey Epstein.
The draft contains language addressing contemplated litigation and the confidentiality of communications. Its surviving copy has blank signature fields and incomplete financial terms. It should therefore not be characterized as a fully executed contract.
Related engagement correspondence EFTA00450388 explains the intended arrangement through counsel. A representative of Hiltzik Strategies described routing the engagement through Epstein’s lawyers as standard practice intended to help protect attorney client privilege.
That correspondence is important because it documents the stated reason for involving legal counsel in the communications engagement. It does not, by itself, establish that every communication was legally privileged or that the arrangement was improper.
The $25,000 Monthly Retainer and Financial Records
The June 2, 2017 invoice EFTA00617467 records a charge of $25,000 for communications services. Additional invoices identified in the released materials carry the 2436 invoice series.
A July 7, 2017 authorization record documents Epstein’s approval of a later payment request. That approval should not be misidentified as authorization for the earlier June invoice.
The Deutsche Bank statement EFTA01297010 records a June 5, 2017 transfer to JPMorgan Chase associated with Hiltzik Strategies. The displayed transaction amount is redacted, so the $25,000 figure must be attributed to the separately preserved invoice rather than the obscured bank entry.
Epstein’s financial schedule EFTA00811530 also groups a Hiltzik public relations expense with a Goldberger legal expense. The entry is useful for understanding Epstein’s own bookkeeping classification, not for establishing the legal status of the services.
Research on the surviving invoice sequence identifies invoices numbered 2436-1, 2436-2, and 2436-5. The intervening numbers suggest additional billing activity, but absent invoices must not be treated as verified payments.
The May 5, 2017 Meeting at Epstein’s New York Residence
The Epstein schedule EFTA00285385 lists a 4:30 p.m. appointment on May 5, 2017 with Matthew Hiltzik and his colleagues Ben Sosenko and Melissa Nathan.
Additional meeting coordination records EFTA02213000 identify Epstein’s East 71st Street residence as the meeting location and describe plans for members of Hiltzik’s team to attend.
The documents establish that the meeting was scheduled and coordinated. They do not provide a transcript or complete account of the discussions that occurred.
Melissa Nathan and Ben Sosenko
Melissa Nathan and Ben Sosenko appear in the scheduling records as colleagues accompanying Hiltzik. Their presence is relevant to identifying the professional personnel associated with the Epstein account.
Neither a calendar entry nor a professional connection establishes knowledge of, participation in, or responsibility for Epstein’s criminal conduct. Their particular responsibilities during the meeting require additional contemporaneous documentation.
The June 2017 Communications About Epstein’s Criminal Case
In correspondence EFTA02386184, dated June 5, 2017, Hiltzik discussed what material concerning Epstein’s previous legal case could be shared publicly and how the plea arrangement might affect a review of the facts.
This correspondence is especially significant because it demonstrates that the communications engagement concerned Epstein’s public legal history and the practical limitations of presenting that history to the public.
The exchange does not establish that Hiltzik independently verified Epstein’s characterization of the underlying allegations. Epstein’s own descriptions must be understood as statements by an interested party and not adopted as factual findings.
A separate document labeled JE Questions addresses Epstein’s background and related matters. Its preparation, authorship, and precise date cannot be conclusively assigned to Hiltzik solely from the available information.
The Filthy Rich Book and Proposed Screen Adaptation
The June 2017 correspondence EFTA00685379 records discussion of plans to adapt Filthy Rich, the 2016 book about Epstein by James Patterson and John Connolly.
Epstein and attorney Darren Indyke forwarded material concerning the proposed adaptation. Hiltzik responded by treating the coverage as a potential opportunity to dispute or respond to the book’s presentation of Epstein.
The exchange provides direct evidence of reputation management discussions concerning a media production about Epstein. It does not establish that Hiltzik influenced the production, contacted its creators, or secured editorial changes.
December 2018 and Renewed Public Scrutiny
The December 4, 2018 correspondence EFTA01014386 documents renewed discussion between Hiltzik and Epstein shortly after the publication of Julie K. Brown’s Miami Herald investigation.
Hiltzik referred to using a personal Gmail account for privacy and to continuing conversations through Epstein’s attorney so that confidentiality protections could be maintained as before.
These statements connect the earlier 2017 legal and public relations arrangement with the period of renewed scrutiny in late 2018. They demonstrate an expressed concern for privacy and privilege, but do not prove concealment of criminal evidence or an unlawful purpose.
The December 15, 2018 Ken Starr and Michael Wolff Email Exchange
The House Oversight email metadata for HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_030255 identifies a December 15, 2018 communication from Matthew Hiltzik within a thread involving Michael Wolff, Jeffrey Epstein, and advisers including Kathy Ruemmler and Darren Indyke.
The underlying House Oversight correspondence concerns proposed language defending the handling of Epstein’s earlier prosecution. Kenneth Starr supplied a draft argument about the treatment of Epstein’s case. Michael Wolff discussed possible political framing, and Hiltzik proposed language that would acknowledge Epstein had done something wrong.
The distinction matters. The records do not merely show that Hiltzik’s name appeared in an address field. They show substantive participation in a discussion of how Epstein’s case might be publicly characterized.
Nevertheless, the emails do not conclusively establish whether the proposed wording was published, who approved any final text, or whether every participant agreed with the resulting presentation.
Michael Wolff and the Earlier Professional Connection
The Wolff and Epstein email archive includes a November 2014 discussion in which Wolff suggested Hiltzik as a potential crisis communications adviser for another high profile individual.
Wolff’s recommendation predates the documented 2017 Epstein engagement. It helps establish that Hiltzik was already known within Wolff’s professional network for handling high profile communications problems.
A recommendation in 2014 is not proof that Hiltzik began representing Epstein at that time. The distinction between a third party recommendation, an introduction, and a paid engagement must be maintained.
Chronology of Documented Events
| Date | Documented event | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| November 2014 | Michael Wolff recommends Hiltzik as a possible communications adviser for another client. | Wolff archive |
| April 27, 2017 | Draft engagement agreement prepared through Darren Indyke. | EFTA00583908 |
| May 5, 2017 | Epstein calendar lists Hiltzik, Nathan, and Sosenko for a meeting. | EFTA00285385 |
| June 2, 2017 | Invoice records $25,000 in communications charges. | EFTA00617467 |
| June 5, 2017 | Hiltzik discusses public presentation of Epstein’s previous case. | EFTA02386184 |
| June 17, 2017 | Correspondence discusses the proposed Filthy Rich adaptation. | EFTA00685379 |
| July 7, 2017 | Epstein authorizes a later invoice payment. | EFTA01042771 |
| December 4, 2018 | Hiltzik discusses privacy and communications through counsel. | EFTA01014386 |
| December 15, 2018 | House Oversight emails document discussion of a proposed public defense of Epstein. | House Oversight record |
Evidence Appearances
The following inventory identifies records relevant to Hiltzik’s professional relationship with Epstein. This is a verified lead inventory for the present article, not a certified enumeration of every Hiltzik reference across all released datasets.
| Document | Description | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| EFTA00583908 | Draft engagement agreement | Proposed representation through Indyke, unsigned |
| EFTA00450388 | Engagement correspondence | Explains legal counsel structure |
| EFTA00617467 | June 2017 invoice | Establishes $25,000 charge |
| EFTA01042771 | Payment authorization | Epstein’s July payment approval |
| EFTA01297010 | Bank statement | Records transaction associated with firm, amount redacted |
| EFTA00811530 | Financial schedule | Groups legal and PR expenses |
| EFTA00285385 | Epstein calendar | May 5 meeting with Hiltzik team |
| EFTA02213000 | Meeting coordination | New York meeting arrangements |
| EFTA00452523 | May scheduling emails | Subsequent call and meeting arrangements |
| EFTA02386184 | June communications | Media treatment of previous legal case |
| EFTA00799469 | JE Questions document | Background and public messaging questions, authorship uncertain |
| EFTA00685379 | Filthy Rich discussion | Response to proposed media adaptation |
| EFTA01043939 | June 6, 2017 email exchange | Further coordination and confidential communications |
| EFTA01014386 | December 2018 correspondence | Privacy and communications through attorneys |
Associated People and Organizations
Darren Indyke
Attorney Darren Indyke served as the legal intermediary named in the proposed Hiltzik Strategies engagement. The attorney’s role is directly documented in the engagement and related correspondence.
Jeffrey Epstein
Epstein was the intended recipient of the public relations services and appears in communications, payment authorization, and associated financial records.
Michael Wolff
Journalist Michael Wolff appears in communications concerning Epstein’s reputation, media coverage, and proposed public statements. His earlier professional recommendation of Hiltzik predates the documented engagement.
Melissa Nathan
Melissa Nathan appears in the May 2017 meeting arrangements as a member of Hiltzik’s professional team. The reviewed records do not establish her individual responsibility for any particular media strategy.
Ben Sosenko
Ben Sosenko is identified among the Hiltzik personnel scheduled to meet Epstein in May 2017. His specific participation in later correspondence requires further research.
Kathy Ruemmler
Kathy Ruemmler appears among the copied participants in December 2018 correspondence involving Hiltzik and other Epstein advisers. Her appearance in this thread does not establish agreement with every proposal under discussion.
Kenneth Starr
Kenneth Starr supplied proposed language addressing criticism of Epstein’s earlier prosecution. The December 2018 email chain shows that draft language circulating among Epstein and associated advisers.
What the Documentary Record Establishes
The reviewed records support several conclusions. Epstein sought and paid for professional public relations assistance after his 2008 conviction. Hiltzik Strategies discussed communications arrangements through Epstein’s legal counsel. Epstein’s records identify billing, meetings, and discussions concerning the public treatment of his earlier prosecution.
The material also demonstrates continued communications in late 2018, when Epstein faced renewed scrutiny following investigative reporting.
These are findings concerning professional services, financial arrangements, scheduling, and communications. They are not findings that Hiltzik committed a crime, assisted trafficking, or had knowledge of unreported abuse.
Uncertainties and Open Investigative Questions
- Does a fully signed copy of the April 2017 engagement agreement survive in another production?
- What were the exact start and end dates of paid services?
- Can all invoices in the 2436 sequence be located and reconciled against banking records?
- What specific deliverables, statements, or press responses were produced under the engagement?
- Are there additional correspondence records under the spellings Hiltzik, Hiltzig, Matt Hiltzik, and the firm’s name?
- What was the final disposition of the December 2018 Ken Starr draft?
- Can additional House Oversight materials clarify the roles of each person copied on the correspondence?
- Do further calendars, accounting records, or law firm records document additional meetings or payments?
The absence of a record in one database or search index should not be treated as proof that the event did not occur. Searchable collections vary in scope, formatting, and completeness.
Why Matthew Hiltzik Matters to the Epstein Investigation
Matthew Hiltzik’s documented relevance to the Epstein files lies primarily in the professional management of Epstein’s public reputation after his conviction. His case provides a concrete example of how public relations, legal advice, financial transactions, and media relationships intersected around Epstein during 2017 and 2018.
The arrangement raises legitimate historical questions about the specific communications services Epstein purchased, how his advisers framed his legal history, and whether particular proposed public statements were ultimately published.
Answering those questions requires direct documentary evidence, not assumptions based on professional associations. The released records provide a basis for investigating the communications network while preserving the distinction between lawful representation and criminal misconduct.
Sources
- EFTA00583908 Draft communications engagement agreement.
- EFTA00450388 Attorney engagement structure correspondence.
- EFTA00617467 June 2017 Hiltzik Strategies invoice.
- EFTA01042771 July 2017 payment authorization.
- EFTA01297010 Deutsche Bank financial records.
- EFTA00811530 Epstein financial schedule.
- EFTA00285385 May 2017 calendar.
- EFTA02213000 Meeting coordination correspondence.
- EFTA00452523 Additional scheduling correspondence.
- EFTA02386184 June 2017 public relations correspondence.
- EFTA00799469 JE Questions document.
- EFTA00685379 Filthy Rich adaptation correspondence.
- EFTA01043939 June 2017 email exchange.
- EFTA01014386 December 2018 correspondence.
- HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_030255 December 15, 2018 email metadata.
- Epstein Data research profile Secondary analysis and evidence references.
- The Daily Beast Professional background and Weinstein account reporting.