Caroline Flack's lawyer has warned the unnamed BBC presenter not to come forward amid a gathering storm of allegations.
The pressure has intensified for the high-profile figure to confirm their identity after a mum claimed the presenter paid their 17-year-old child for explicit pictures.
Since then, a separate person in their early 20s has accused the male of sending them threatening messages after meeting on a dating app. And, according to The Sun, a 23-year-old now claims the presenter broke lockdown rules to meet them and also paid them sums of money.
Jeremy Vine, who has publicly stated he is not the presenter in question, said on Wednesday that he believes the unnamed man "should now come forward publicly" because the new allegations "will result in yet more vitriol being thrown at perfectly innocent colleagues."
But Jonathan Coad, a media lawyer who has represented a number of celebrity clients including Caroline, warns against the bold move. Speaking on BBC 5 Live this morning, when host Rick Edwards asked whether it would be worthwhile for the presenter to come forward, Mr Coad responded: "No, it really wouldn't.
"At the moment we cannot be sure whether this person is guilty or not, [if it's a] criminal offence or doing something inappropriate. I have represented top talent for a long time and I know what the impact can be."
The expert went on to explain that he has represented three top clients in TV who have tried to take their own lives, adding: "One of them, Caroline Flack, succeeded. I couldn't ask them to volunteer their head for the chopping block even though the day might come when that is going to happen anyway."
Former BBC News presenter Jon Sopel called for an ultimatum on the scandal that first emerged last Friday - saying on Tuesday evening that the onus is 'now on The Sun to 'show us, or shut up' after the publication exposed the presenter's alleged antics on Saturday.
Mr Coad agreed that while he wouldn't advise the presenter to be voluntarily named, public interest laws may soon override privacy laws, meaning The Sun or the BBC could name him.
"When is the point where it comes legal and appropriate to name this individual?" the lawyer asked. " I think we may be reaching a tipping point.
"His protections come from both the law of reputation and second, law of privacy. The BBC itself got sued by Cliff Richard a few years ago for effectively naming him as a suspect for holding indecent images.
"They went down very badly in that case, so they are being careful and also have to be respectful of this individual - at the moment, he is only accused but I'm wondering whether the point may have come.
"The protection for someone who is accused comes from case law to do with privacy but there comes a point where the public interest overtakes the law of privacy. What it says is that first, is it a private issue? The court says yes. And secondly, they say, is there a public interest which trumps that?
"The point has come perhaps where the answer is perhaps yes. Both The Sun and the BBC should rethink and possibly name him."
Mr Coad also explained that the struggle of whether to name him or not will be made easier if a criminal investigation is launched.
He went on: "If the point comes where the police decide a crime has been committed, and they arrest and charge this individual, then immediately the public interest switches.
"The case law is very clear on that. At that point, the right for people to know kicks in. The police have looked at the evidence, and have decided it is sufficiently strong to lay charges and at that point, the law says the right to privacy has to be set aside. The legal process has begun and the individual should be named."
The Sun has said they approached both the BBC and the presenter, and would be able to hand over evidence to the investigation team. However, the initial young person at the heart of the explicit image controversy announced on Monday - via a lawyer - that nothing inappropriate or unlawful happened with the presenter. Although the mum still stands by her claims.
BBC News said it had contacted the presenter via his lawyer, but had received no response to the allegations.
