Justin Baldoni’s attorney, Bryan Freedman, is declaring a legal victory after a judge awarded Blake Lively only a fraction of the nearly $8 million she requested in attorneys’ fees and costs. While Freedman expressed support for the California law used to grant Lively the award, he argued that it was applied in a way lawmakers never intended. The attorney also took a pointed shot at Lively, accusing the actress of attempting to use the legal system for her “own personal gain.”
Freedman addressed the ruling in a statement to TMZ, describing California Civil Code Section 47.1 as “not a perfect law, but it is an important one designed to protect real survivors, who deserve to see this law tested and perfected in the court of law.”
The law allows a prevailing defendant in certain defamation cases involving reports of sexual assault, harassment or discrimination to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Although Freedman said he fundamentally supports the law’s intended purpose, he questioned how it was used in the dispute involving Lively and Baldoni.
“Notwithstanding the fact that the law was applied in ways it was never intended for, my clients intentionally left Section 47.1 to be ruled on without any appellate rights to appeal as part of the settlement agreement, to prevent either party from overturning the law,” Freedman said.
His statement indicates that Baldoni and the Wayfarer parties will not appeal the ruling involving Section 47.1.
Blake Lively Awarded More Than $407K
U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman awarded Lively $363,245.40 in attorneys’ fees and an additional $44,206.35 in costs, bringing the total to $407,451.75. The award was substantially less than the amount requested by the “It Ends With Us” actress.
Lively said she incurred $7,495,526.87 in attorneys’ fees while defending herself against Baldoni’s lawsuit, along with $539,514.01 in costs and expenses. Her combined request totaled more than $8 million.
According to the Associated Press, the judge determined that Lively could recover reasonable costs associated with successfully defending herself against Baldoni’s defamation claim. However, the court rejected the majority of her request after finding that the number of hours submitted for reimbursement was unreasonable.
The ruling also reportedly excluded work that was not directly connected to defending the defamation claim, including time spent on media relations.
Bryan Freedman Calls The Reduced Award A ‘Significant Victory’
Freedman argued that the dramatic reduction vindicated Baldoni and the other parties ordered to pay the award. According to the attorney, the ruling speaks for itself because the judge rejected approximately 95% of the amount Lively sought.
Freedman said the decision showed that the court considered her demand for more than $8 million “outrageous and unreasonable.” He then issued a sharp message directed at the actress. “The ruling is a significant victory for my clients and sends a clear message that, no matter how powerful you may be, the courtroom is not a place to take advantage of the law for your own personal gain,” Freedman said.
However, the court still recognized Lively as the prevailing party for the purpose of recovering reasonable fees under Section 47.1.
Blake Lively’s Lawyers Call The Award ‘Historic’
Lively’s attorneys, Esra Hudson and Michael Gottlieb, presented a very different interpretation of the decision. “Justin Baldoni and the Wayfarer Parties lost their meritless retaliatory $400 million lawsuit, which two different courts held was designed to stifle public criticism and silence Blake Lively and others,” they told TMZ.
“This first-ever award of fees and costs under this California law is historic, and demonstrates that there are real consequences of bringing retaliatory lawsuits,” they added. “As we have said from day one, Blake Lively’s case was never about money, it was about accountability.”
The attorneys also connected Lively’s case to recent developments involving Rebel Wilson and Amanda Ghost. “She lifted the curtain for other victims, and set the precedent for others to come forward and expose similar conduct. This result demonstrates that the legal system is not as easily manipulated as social media, and still functions as a force for accountability,” they said.
Lively’s attorneys focused on the fact that she received any award under the law, while Baldoni’s team emphasized how substantially the court reduced her requested amount.
Justin Baldoni’s $400M Lawsuit Was Dismissed
The fee dispute followed the dismissal of Baldoni’s $400 million lawsuit against Lively, Ryan Reynolds, publicist Leslie Sloane and The New York Times. Judge Liman dismissed Baldoni’s defamation claims in June 2025. The court determined that Lively’s allegations were included in a civil rights complaint and were protected from liability.
Baldoni had accused The New York Times of selectively using text messages and emails to portray him negatively while reporting on Lively’s allegations. The judge found that the newspaper’s reporting closely followed the contents of Lively’s complaint.
“The Times reviewed the available evidence and reported, perhaps in a dramatized manner, what it believed to have happened. The Times had no obvious motive to favor Lively’s version of events,” the ruling stated.
Baldoni also accused Reynolds of falsely calling him a “sexual predator.” However, the court found that the remark was consistent with the allegations Lively had made and that Reynolds had no reason to believe they were false.
Blake Lively Previously Called The Dismissal A ‘Total Victory’
After Baldoni’s lawsuit was dismissed, Lively’s attorneys celebrated the outcome as a vindication for everyone named in the case. “Today’s opinion is a total victory and a complete vindication for Blake Lively, along with those that Justin Baldoni and the Wayfarer Parties dragged into their retaliatory lawsuit, including Ryan Reynolds, Leslie Sloane and The New York Times,” Hudson and Gottlieb said, calling the $400 million lawsuit “a sham.”
The New York Times also welcomed the dismissal, expressing how “grateful” they are to the court for seeing the lawsuit against The New York Times “for what it was: a meritless attempt to stifle honest reporting.”
They added, “We will continue to stand up in court for our journalism and for our journalists when their work comes under attack.”
