Blake Lively’s legal team has filed a **third urgent letter** (dated January 27, 2025) to the court, accusing Justin Baldoni’s attorney, Mark Freedman, of orchestrating a calculated media campaign to sway public opinion and derail the legal process. This isn’t just courtroom drama—it’s a high-stakes battle over ethics, privacy, and the integrity of the justice system.

Key Allegations

1. Smear Campaign Escalation – Freedman allegedly accused Lively of filing her complaint with the “sole intent to ruin innocent lives” and dismissed her claims as a “fictitious smear campaign.” – In a bombshell claim, Freedman reportedly stated her lawsuit has “devastated the entirety of the domestic violence community,” a narrative amplified in media outlets like Daily Mail and People Magazine.

2. Media Coordination – Lively’s team cites a coordinated strategy involving: Traditional Media: Daily Mail articles quoting Freedman’s alleged plan to “torpedo Blake Lively’s career for good. Social Media: Influencers with ties to Freedman “parroting his narrative”

Timed Appearances: Multiple segments on The Megyn Kelly Show and synchronized press releases timed to court filings.

3. Financial Muscle A billionaire backer has reportedly pledged $100 million to fund a campaign to “ruin the lives of Ms. Lively and her family.” – The lawsuit and media blitz are allegedly part of this broader financial effort.

4. Jury Contamination: Lively’s lawyers argue the media storm risks tainting the jury pool. – Witness Intimidation: Witnesses may fear retaliation if publicly targeted. – Discovery Abuse: Selective leaks of evidence violate proper legal procedures, creating an “arms race” of disclosures.

5. Freedman’s Playbook: The filings highlight Freedman’s own statements as evidence: – Publicly dismissing concerns as “bullying tactics.” – Admitting plans to release “selected” communications.

6. Doubling down on media: engagement despite court warnings.

The Bigger Picture This case raises critical questions: – Ethics vs. Strategy: When does aggressive legal advocacy cross into unethical territory?

Rule 3.6 Violations: Lawyers are barred from trying cases in the press—could Freedman face sanctions? –

Celebrity Trials: How does media bias impact high-profile cases? —

What’s Next? Lively’s team is demanding immediate judicial intervention to enforce Rule 3.6, which restricts lawyers from influencing cases via public statements. The court’s response could set a precedent for how media tactics are policed in celebrity litigation.

Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni are locked in a contentious legal battle that has escalated into a public spectacle. Lively’s legal team has accused Baldoni’s team, led by attorney Freedman, of orchestrating a coordinated media campaign to sway public opinion and intimidate her. The case has drawn widespread attention due to its high-profile nature and the aggressive tactics being employed by both sides.

---

Key Allegations and Evidence

1. Media Campaign by Baldoni’s Team:
   • Lively’s team alleges that Freedman is using a strategic media and social media campaign to damage her reputation. This includes:
     • Coordinated Media Appearances: Freedman has appeared on shows like The Megyn Kelly Show and worked with outlets like Daily Mail, People Magazine, and ENSTARZ to release selective information.
     • Social Media Influence: Baldoni’s team is accused of leveraging influencers, including former clients, to amplify their narrative. Lively’s team claims these influencers are “parroting” Freedman’s talking points online.
     • Financial Backing: A billionaire backer has reportedly pledged $100 million to fund the media campaign against Lively and her family.
   • Evidence: Lively’s team cites a Daily Mail article where Freedman allegedly announced plans to “torpedo Blake Lively’s career for good.” They also point to multiple media reports and social media posts as evidence of the coordinated campaign.
2. Legal and Ethical Concerns:
   • Lively’s team argues that the media campaign violates Rule 3.6, which prohibits lawyers from trying cases in the press. They claim this creates:
     • Jury Pool Contamination: Public opinion could influence potential jurors.
     • Witness Intimidation: Witnesses may feel pressured to align with the public narrative.
     • Violation of Discovery Processes: Selective leaks undermine the fairness of the legal process.
   • Court Filings: Lively’s team has submitted multiple letters to the court, including one on January 27, 2025, requesting intervention. They cite specific instances of Freedman’s public statements and media coordination as evidence.
3. Public Reaction:
   • Some commenters argue that Lively initially brought the case into the public domain by filing her complaint with The New York Times and making it a downloadable PDF. They suggest Baldoni’s team is simply responding in kind.
   • Others criticize Baldoni’s tactics, calling them “bullying” and comparing them to strategies used in high-profile cases like Amber Heard’s.

---

Timeline of Events

• Initial Complaint: Lively filed a complaint against Baldoni, alleging misconduct during the production of a film. The complaint was made public, leading to widespread media coverage.
• Media Campaign: Baldoni’s team allegedly began a coordinated media strategy, including appearances on The Megyn Kelly Show and articles in outlets like Daily Mail.
• Court Filings: Lively’s team has filed three letters to the court, requesting intervention to stop the media campaign. They cite specific examples of Freedman’s public statements and media coordination.
• Upcoming Conference: A court conference is scheduled for February 2025, where the judge may address these issues.

---

Public and Legal Commentary

1. Support for Lively:
   • Many commenters side with Lively, arguing that she is being unfairly targeted and that the media campaign reflects broader societal issues in how women are treated.
   • Some highlight the credentials of Lively’s attorney, Michael Gottlieb, suggesting he is highly experienced and capable of handling the case effectively.
2. Criticism of Baldoni’s Tactics:
   • Commenters describe Baldoni’s legal approach as “sloppy” and “ambulance chaser” behavior. They argue that the media campaign makes Baldoni look guiltier and undermines the integrity of the legal process.
   • Comparisons are drawn to other high-profile cases, such as Amber Heard’s, where media campaigns were allegedly used to discredit one party.
3. Frustration with the Court:
   • Many express frustration that the court has not yet intervened despite multiple requests from Lively’s team. Some speculate that the judge may address the issue during the upcoming conference.
4. Distraction from Larger Issues:
   • A few commenters express frustration that the case is receiving so much attention, arguing that it distracts from more pressing issues like the war in Ukraine, civil rights, and reproductive health care in the U.S.

---

Key Takeaways

• Legal Battle: The case has become a high-stakes legal and public relations battle, with both sides accusing each other of misconduct.
• Media Strategy: Baldoni’s team is accused of using a coordinated media and social media strategy to sway public opinion, while Lively’s team is pushing for the case to be decided in court based on evidence.
• Public Opinion: The case has sparked widespread debate, with many criticizing Baldoni’s tactics and expressing frustration with the court’s lack of action