The bitter legal battle between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni, which grew out of their highly publicized falling-out during the making of It Ends With Us, has reached another dramatic conclusion in a New York courtroom. After months of accusations, countersuits, reputational damage and enormous legal bills, Judge Lewis Liman ruled that Lively should receive $363,245.40 in attorneys’ fees and $44,206.35 in costs from Baldoni’s side. The combined award of $407,451.75 is significant, but it represents only around 5 percent of the roughly $8 million Lively had originally sought. The decision therefore produced an unusual outcome: Lively successfully defended herself against Baldoni’s $400 million defamation action and became entitled to recover certain expenses, yet the court rejected the overwhelming majority of the amount she requested.

The dispute began after tensions between Lively and Baldoni emerged from the production of It Ends With Us, the successful film adaptation that earned approximately $148 million domestically and $350 million worldwide. Lively sued Baldoni and his Wayfarer Studios production company in December 2024, alleging sexual harassment and defamation. Baldoni denied the allegations and responded the following month with a $400 million defamation lawsuit against Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds and The New York Times, which had published Lively’s claims. Judge Liman later dismissed Baldoni’s defamation case, while most of Lively’s claims were also dismissed. The remaining dispute was ultimately settled in May, shortly before the case had been expected to proceed to trial, with no money changing hands as part of that settlement.

Although the principal litigation was resolved, the battle over legal expenses continued. Because Baldoni’s $400 million lawsuit had been dismissed, Lively was permitted to seek reimbursement for legal fees connected specifically to defending herself against that action. Her lawyers initially sought approximately $7.5 million in attorneys’ fees and another $539,000 in costs, with additional expenses potentially pushing the total to around $8.3 million. The request included millions billed by the high-profile firms Willkie Farr & Gallagher and Manatt, Phelps & Phillips. Lively’s lead attorney Michael Gottlieb stated in filings that his normal hourly rate was $2,795 but that Lively had received a discounted rate of $2,187. He alone reportedly billed 224 hours, amounting to roughly $457,000.

Judge Liman did not conclude that the lawyers’ hourly rates themselves were unreasonable. He acknowledged that the litigation created substantial financial and reputational risks for both Lively and Baldoni, making expensive representation understandable. Instead, the court focused heavily on the quantity of work for which Lively requested reimbursement and the documentation supporting those expenses. In his 21-page ruling, Liman said the number of hours claimed was unreasonable and pointed to broader discrepancies and deficiencies in the submitted fee schedule. Lively had not provided the court with the underlying invoices, instead relying on forms describing payments and work performed. The judge also found that some descriptions of internal communications were too vague to establish precisely what legal work had been completed.

Baldoni’s attorneys had strongly challenged Lively’s multimillion-dollar demand, arguing that the records were overly broad, inefficient and insufficiently supported. They claimed the request included work performed by as many as 82 people and argued that Lively’s legal teams had spent an excessive amount of time communicating internally. Their filings also highlighted individual expenses that attracted attention, including a reported $155 charge connected to a six-minute telephone call and approximately $1,400 for an attorney’s one-night stay at a five-star hotel. Baldoni’s lawyers maintained that Lively had failed to clearly separate expenses directly connected to defending the defamation lawsuit from work associated with other aspects of the wider legal conflict. Judge Liman ultimately accepted significant portions of those objections when calculating the much smaller award.

Another important reduction involved Lively’s request to recover expenses associated with public-relations work. The court rejected reimbursement for those costs because Judge Liman concluded that media relations were not integral to the legal defense against Baldoni’s defamation claim. That distinction was crucial because the conflict had unfolded not only in court but also across the media, with both celebrities facing intense public scrutiny. Lively’s attorneys had accused Baldoni’s side of using “scorched-earth” litigation tactics intended to exhaust her resources, while Baldoni’s team described her fee request as excessive and deeply flawed. Liman himself characterized the proceedings as a fierce battle between the parties, reflecting how a disagreement originating around a Hollywood production developed into an extraordinarily expensive legal and reputational confrontation.

Lively’s attorneys nevertheless portrayed the final ruling as an important victory because she received an award after Baldoni’s $400 million lawsuit was dismissed. Lawyers Esra Hudson and Michael Gottlieb said the decision demonstrated that retaliatory lawsuits can carry financial consequences and argued that Lively’s case had always been focused on accountability rather than money. They also maintained that the wider litigation had helped expose alleged online smear tactics and could encourage others to challenge similar conduct. Baldoni’s attorney Brian Freedman offered a sharply different interpretation, describing the dramatic reduction of Lively’s requested fees as a significant victory for his clients and arguing that the ruling showed that even powerful figures cannot use the courtroom to obtain unreasonable financial benefits. The opposing statements underscored how both camps continued to claim vindication from different parts of the same decision.

Ultimately, the unexpected conclusion is far more complicated than a simple victory for either Hollywood star. Baldoni’s enormous $400 million defamation lawsuit did not survive, giving Lively the legal basis to seek reimbursement for defending herself. Yet her attempt to recover approximately $8 million resulted in an award of only $407,451.75 after the judge rejected much of the requested billing as unreasonable or inadequately documented. At the same time, the underlying dispute that once threatened to become an explosive trial ended in settlement after most of Lively’s claims had been dismissed. What began as reported on-set conflict during It Ends With Us eventually produced lawsuits involving hundreds of millions of dollars, expensive attorneys, public accusations and enormous reputational stakes. The final fee ruling therefore provides a striking closing chapter: after an extraordinarily costly Hollywood legal war, the court awarded only a small fraction of what Lively requested, revealing just how aggressively—and expensively—the two sides had fought behind the scenes.