Sigrid McCawley frames the attorney fee motion as a platform for Lively to advocate for survivors nationwide, saying 'This is about so much more to her.' The joint statement acknowledged concerns 'deserved to be heard,' positioning Lively's narrative as validated.
Insiders note Baldoni's lawyer Bryan Freedman has been doing victory laps on YouTube calling the deal a win. Meanwhile, Lively dropped claims seeking $300 million and 10 of her 13 original claims were dismissed by Judge Lewis Liman last month—Freedman's camp sees this very differently than 'resounding victory.'
Lively filed the attorney fee motion in September 2025 under California's Protecting Survivors from Weaponized Defamation Lawsuits Act (2023). Her side notes Baldoni's lawyers agreed not to appeal Judge Liman's ruling. On April 2, Lively's sexual harassment claim against Justin Baldoni and Wayfarer CEO Jamie Heath was dismissed.
Both sides are claiming victory here—but make no mistake, this attorney fee motion is Blake Lively refusing to let the last chapter be written by anyone else. The real test comes when Judge Liman decides whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted.
Blake Lively agreed to settle her claims against Justin Baldoni's Wayfarer Studios on Monday—but the legal warfare between these two Hollywood heavyweights is far from over. While headlines screamed about closure, one simmering dispute remains unresolved: Lively's motion for attorney fees stemming from Baldoni's failed defamation suit against her. Lively filed that motion back in September 2025 under California's Protecting Survivors from Weaponized Defamation Lawsuits Act—a 2023 law specifically designed to shield sexual abuse accusers from what legislators called "weaponized" defamation suits.
Her attorney Sigrid McCawley told Variety on Thursday that this isn't merely about recovering costs—it's about giving Lively a platform. 'This is really a space where she's been able to do some great good for survivors, and she wants to continue that work,' McCawley said. 'It allows her to help pave the way here.' The lawyer didn't shy away from the emotional stakes either: 'This was a horrific thing she had to live through, and she's been so brave.
This is really the icing on the cake in so many ways.' The competing victory dances tell you everything about how messy this case has become. Judge Lewis Liman threw out 10 of Lively's 13 claims last month—including her core sexual harassment allegations against Baldoni—before both sides issued a joint statement Monday acknowledging 'the process presented challenges' and that concerns raised by Ms. Lively 'deserved to be heard.' Lively's team immediately declared the settlement 'a resounding victory for Blake Lively,' while Baldoni's attorney Bryan Freedman has been staging what sources describe as a victory lap across YouTube appearances, arguing his client came out on top.
The tension escalated when Freedman reminded reporters that Lively originally sought $300 million and pursued sexual harassment claims against both Baldoni and Wayfarer CEO Jamie Heath—claims that evaporated by April 2. 'On April 2 that was gone… That's when the victory happened,' Freedman told Variety. 'I'm not sure what we're arguing about at this point.' The crux of Lively's fee motion hinges on whether California law applies.
Baldoni's team argues all conduct occurred in New York and New Jersey, not California—making the 2023 statute inapplicable. Lively's camp counters that her original administrative complaint was filed with California's Department of Civil Rights, establishing jurisdiction. More significantly, her attorneys argue the joint statement—which acknowledges her allegations 'deserved to be heard'—already concedes the key legal threshold under the law: that she had a "reasonable basis" for her claims.
If Judge Liman agrees and orders an evidentiary hearing on damages, experts may testify and Lively herself could take the stand. Freedman was dismissive of that prospect: 'This is just a ministerial function of whether someone is going to get fees or not. My assumption would be that Judge Liman has much more important things on the docket than holding an evidentiary hearing.' Beyond the courtroom, Lively is channeling this experience into legislative advocacy.
She's reportedly backing New York's Speak Your Truth Act—a pending state bill modeled directly on California's 2023 law—suggesting she intends to leverage her celebrity and notoriety into systemic change whether or not she recovers a single dollar in legal fees. Both sides will submit additional briefing on the motion, with Liman deciding whether an evidentiary hearing serves any purpose. What remains crystal clear is that Blake Lively has no intention of disappearing quietly from this fight—and for a woman who spent years battling whispers about her marriage, her weight, and her career choices, the final word on 'It Ends With Us' clearly matters more than the settlement check.
