Baldoni’s lawyer fires back at Lively after court awards limited legal fees in harassment case

Bryan Freedman, attorney for Justin Baldoni, issued a forceful statement following a federal judge’s decision to grant Blake Lively limited recovery of legal fees in their prolonged court battle. Judge Lewis J. Liman ruled that Lively could recover costs specifically related to her defense against a countersuit filed by Baldoni after she initiated legal action in December 2024. The judge simultaneously rejected her requests for triple damages and punitive awards, marking a partial victory for both parties in the contentious dispute.

The legal clash between the “It Ends With Us” co-stars began when Lively filed a complaint alleging sexual harassment during the film’s production and claimed Baldoni orchestrated a smear campaign against her reputation. Baldoni denied all allegations from the outset, maintaining that Lively’s accusations were fabricated. The actor responded in January 2025 with a massive $400 million defamation lawsuit targeting Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, and several other defendants.

Defense attorney claims complete victory despite fee award

Freedman’s statement emphasized what he characterized as a decisive legal win for his client. “We fought and won against a coordinated effort built on allegations of sexual harassment, retaliation, and a smear campaign that never happened,” he stated. The attorney highlighted that Lively originally demanded over $300 million in fees and damages but ultimately saw 10 of her 13 claims dismissed before choosing to settle without receiving monetary compensation.

The lawyer stressed that all sexual harassment and defamation claims were thrown out by the court, forcing Lively to pivot her strategy. “Notwithstanding that all of her sexual harassment and defamation claims were thrown out by the court, Ms. Lively then pivoted to exploit a California law that was established to protect real victims in what proved to be a fruitless mission to obtain damages,” Freedman continued. He described the limited attorney fee award as a minor concession in a case that lasted only months, insisting that justice ultimately prevailed in exposing the truth.

Lively’s legal team responds with DARVO accusation

The actress’s attorneys fired back with their own statement, accusing Freedman and his clients of deploying a “DARVO” tactic — an acronym standing for Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender. “Bryan Freedman and his clients resorted to a DARVO statement that is a pack of lies,” the response began. Lively’s team pointed out an apparent contradiction in Baldoni’s position, noting that just weeks earlier, they acknowledged her claims “deserved to be heard.”

The statement criticized what they described as an attempt to financially punish women who bring harassment claims in good faith. “Now it seems Justin Baldoni thinks women who bring claims of sexual harassment and retaliation in good faith, without malice, should be sued into oblivion,” the legal team argued. They expressed confidence that California law protects against such retaliatory lawsuits, concluding that “people who do nothing wrong don’t have to pay millions of dollars, which is where this is headed now.”

Timeline of dismissals and settlement reveals complex legal battle

The litigation evolved through multiple phases over an 18-month period. After Baldoni filed his $400 million countersuit in January 2025, a federal judge dismissed the action in June 2025, ruling that many statements at issue enjoyed legal protection and failed to meet required legal standards. The judge’s decision represented a significant setback for Baldoni’s defamation claims, though both sides continued to pursue various legal avenues.

• December 2024: Lively files initial complaint alleging harassment and reputational damage.
• January 2025: Baldoni responds with $400 million lawsuit against Lively, Reynolds, and others.
• June 2025: Federal judge dismisses Baldoni’s countersuit, citing legal protections.
• Throughout 2025-2026: Both parties claim victories as various claims are narrowed or dismissed.
• May 2026: Parties reach confidential settlement ending most remaining litigation.

Several of Lively’s original claims were either narrowed or dismissed before reaching trial, though some retaliation-related issues remained part of the active case file. The litigation extended well into 2026 before both parties agreed to resolve their differences through a private settlement arrangement.

Additional legal actions expanded scope of dispute

Baldoni pursued parallel legal action against The New York Times over its coverage of the controversy, adding another dimension to the sprawling legal battle. The newspaper had published detailed reporting on the allegations, which Baldoni contested as inaccurate and damaging to his professional reputation. This separate lawsuit added complexity to an already intricate web of claims and counterclaims between the former co-stars.

Throughout the proceedings, Freedman maintained that innocent people suffered reputational damage based on false allegations. “Throughout this process, innocent people had their reputations unfairly tarnished. There was no sexual harassment. There was no retaliation. There was no smear campaign,” he asserted. The attorney emphasized that court records and judicial rulings supported his client’s position from the beginning, adding that his team would not hesitate to defend the truth again if necessary.

Settlement terms remain confidential as parties move forward

The May 2026 settlement brought an end to most remaining litigation between the parties, though neither side disclosed the specific terms of their agreement. The confidential nature of the settlement left questions unanswered about potential monetary exchanges, non-disparagement clauses, or other conditions the former co-stars may have accepted to resolve their differences.

Judge Liman’s ruling on attorney fees represented one of the final judicial actions before the settlement, granting Lively the right to recover legal costs associated specifically with defending against Baldoni’s countersuit. The limited scope of the fee award became a central point of contention in the post-ruling statements from both legal teams, with each side claiming the decision vindicated their respective positions. The case highlighted ongoing debates about harassment claims, legal retaliation through costly lawsuits, and the protection of both accusers and the accused in high-profile disputes.