Baldoni Urges Judge to Slash Lively’s Legal Fees
Actor and filmmaker Justin Baldoni has asked a federal judge to reject—or significantly reduce—Blake Lively’s request for more than $8 million in attorney’s fees and litigation costs following the resolution of their highly publicized legal battle over the film It Ends With Us. Baldoni’s filing argues that the amount sought is “grossly excessive,” unsupported by the work performed, and far exceeds what courts typically award in comparable litigation. The dispute now centers not on liability, but on whether Lively is legally entitled to recover the full cost of defending herself against Baldoni’s failed lawsuits.
The legal conflict began in late 2024 when Lively accused Baldoni of sexual harassment and retaliation connected to the production of It Ends With Us. Baldoni denied the allegations and responded with a $400 million lawsuit against Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, and others, asserting claims including defamation and extortion. In June 2025, U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman dismissed Baldoni’s lawsuit, finding that the claims failed as a matter of law. The parties later reached a settlement in May 2026 that resolved the remaining litigation without either side receiving damages.
Following the settlement, Lively petitioned the court to recover approximately $8.04 million in attorney’s fees and litigation expenses. Her legal team argues that California law permits prevailing parties to recover reasonable legal fees in cases involving retaliation and related workplace claims. According to her attorneys, the extensive legal work—including thousands of hours spent responding to multiple lawsuits, discovery disputes, motions, and extensive media attention—was necessary because of the scope and complexity of Baldoni’s litigation strategy. They also contend that awarding fees would discourage retaliatory lawsuits against individuals who report workplace misconduct.
Baldoni’s attorneys strongly dispute both the amount and the reasonableness of the request. In court filings, they argue that Lively’s legal team staffed the case with 82 timekeepers who collectively billed more than 7,000 hours, resulting in what Baldoni describes as excessive duplication of work. His lawyers claim that multiple attorneys performed overlapping tasks, charged unusually high hourly rates, and billed for research and internal conferences beyond what was reasonably necessary. They further argue that Lively failed to provide sufficient documentation demonstrating why such extensive legal staffing was justified.
To support their position, Baldoni’s attorneys cited comparable federal litigation, including a recent case involving The New York Times, where substantially lower attorney-fee requests were submitted despite similarly significant legal issues. Baldoni argues that Lively’s request bears little relationship to customary fee awards and should either be denied entirely or substantially reduced to reflect only reasonable and necessary legal work. According to the filing, the court should carefully scrutinize fee requests to prevent parties from recovering inflated litigation expenses simply because a case attracted widespread media attention.
Lively’s legal team rejects those arguments, maintaining that the case required extraordinary legal resources because Baldoni pursued multiple overlapping claims against several defendants while generating extensive discovery and motion practice. Her attorneys assert that the litigation was unusually complex due to its high public profile, numerous legal issues, and aggressive defense required to defeat Baldoni’s claims. They argue that prevailing parties should not be penalized for incurring substantial legal expenses when defending against unsuccessful lawsuits.
Judge Lewis Liman must now determine whether Lively qualifies as a prevailing party entitled to recover fees and, if so, whether the requested amount is reasonable under applicable law. Federal courts routinely examine attorney-fee petitions by evaluating factors such as the number of hours reasonably expended, prevailing market billing rates, duplication of work, staffing efficiency, and the overall complexity of the litigation. Even when a party is legally entitled to recover fees, courts frequently reduce requested amounts if they conclude that billing records reflect unnecessary work or excessive charges.
The outcome could have broader implications beyond this dispute. Attorney-fee awards often influence litigation strategy because they affect the financial risks associated with filing or defending lawsuits. A substantial award in Lively’s favor could reinforce statutory protections allowing prevailing parties to recover legal costs in retaliation-related cases, while a significant reduction could signal closer judicial scrutiny of large fee requests in high-profile celebrity litigation. Regardless of the court’s decision, the dispute highlights the growing importance of attorney-fee litigation as a separate phase of complex civil lawsuits, particularly where public figures and substantial legal expenses are involved.
Key Legal Outcome
- Justin Baldoni asked a federal judge to deny or substantially reduce Blake Lively’s request for more than $8 million in attorney’s fees and litigation costs.
- Baldoni argues the fee request is excessive, citing over 7,000 billed hours by 82 legal professionals.
- Lively contends she is entitled to recover her legal fees as the prevailing party under applicable California law.
- The court must determine both whether Lively may recover attorney’s fees and whether the requested amount is reasonable.
- Judge Lewis Liman has not yet ruled on the attorney-fee dispute.
Why It Matters
- The ruling could establish guidance on attorney-fee awards in high-profile entertainment litigation.
- It highlights judicial scrutiny of large legal fee requests even after the underlying lawsuit has ended.
- The decision may influence how future retaliation and defamation cases are litigated.
- The outcome could affect the financial consequences of unsuccessful celebrity lawsuits.
- The case underscores that litigation costs can remain contested even after the primary dispute is settled.
Related:
