You know by now that Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni settled their contentious lawsuit battle on Monday, weeks before the trial! They didn’t give a reason, but it’s clear to legal experts who had no involvement in the case that it all likely came down to two things: money and their reputation.
Speaking to People, attorney Richard Schoenstein believes the lawsuit battle between the former It Ends With Us co-stars was likely costing them more than a pretty penny! In fact, he estimates they spent “millions!” Holy s**t! He said:
“The combined legal expense is in the multiple millions. There are around 1,500 docket entries, countless lawyers on both sides, and these are high-priced firms billing well over $1,000 an hour.”
Related: Blake Lively Still ‘Has Hope’ Taylor Swift ‘Friendship Can Be Saved’!
Attorney Megan Thomas, the founder of Megan Thomas Law, PLLC in New York, also doesn’t know exactly, but she has a feeling the number is staggering:
“An obscene amount. I can’t give a number, but both sides had multiple lawyers.”
Blake even brought in a new high-powered law firm, Sussman Godfrey, in the days before the settlement! Imagine how much that cost her! No wonder they decided to settle! Their wallets were probably hurting! And ultimately, after a judge dismissed his counterclaims and gutted her lawsuit, Schoenstein feels Blake and Justin realized it wasn’t worth spending the money to move forward:
“I think they settled because the case wasn’t worth it at this point for either of them. The case had been reduced — his counterclaims were dismissed, and her claims were substantially narrowed. There wasn’t enough to gain from going to trial given the cost, which would have been extremely high, in the millions.”
When you think about it, neither would have won anything by that point, except for their attorneys! Thomas noted that both teams also likely thought about what evidence the jury would see and if it was then worth putting in the effort to fight:
“They’re looking at motions in limine — what evidence will be allowed — jury selection, the jury pool. It’s all data. Her team may have believed key evidence wouldn’t come in at trial, which is a big reason to settle. For Blake, that’s especially important because her retaliation claim depended on evidence of harassment being admitted. If that evidence comes in, it helps her case. If not, it makes it much harder.”
And of course, beyond the price of litigation, there is also the cost of going to trial when it comes to their rep! It is super risky, especially when neither, as Schoenstein puts it, was likely confident about the outcome:
“There’s also the potential adverse PR impact of a trial, and all the evidence that would come out — including possibly involving other people. Neither side could have had strong confidence in the outcome, since juries are unpredictable. She had more power initially, but after many of her claims were dismissed, that power was reduced.”
Thomas, on the other hand, thinks Blake had an advantage in the settlement talks:
“I would think she did. His countersuit was dismissed, and although 10 of her 13 claims were dismissed, she still had three strong claims heading into trial. He was more in the hot seat.”
Yet Blake still reportedly made out with no money! Not even a public apology from Justin! Something tells us she didn’t have the upper hand in the negotiations! But Thomas continued:
“These are two very wealthy parties, so money may not have been the main issue. Reputation likely mattered more. The joint statement is telling — it seems more favorable to Blake, suggesting her claims deserved to be heard.”
Also, Schoenstein noted that “the allegations weren’t as strong, and by the end, there were no claims against Baldoni personally, just against the companies.” He agreed, however, that it all came down to the impact the trial would’ve had on their reputations in the long run:
“I don’t think anyone got a payout large enough to make this worth it. Both sides took reputational hits.”
Blake and Justin probably were willing to do whatever now to protect their already fragile reps, so both attorneys think their settlement included standard provisions like confidentiality, mutual releases, and non-disparagement clauses. Thomas specifically mentioned:
“I strongly suspect there was a mutual non-disparagement clause. That’s almost always included in these kinds of settlements, especially when reputation is at stake.”
But was there too much damage done? Will either ever have careers in the industry after all this? That’ll be the true test to see who came out on top!
What are your thoughts, Perezcious readers? Sound OFF (below)…
[Image via MEGA/WENN, Gent’s Talk Podcast/YouTube]
