This article covers the court’s August 26, 2026, ruling.
Blake Lively was awarded $407,451.75 in attorneys’ fees and costs following the dismissal of a defamation claim brought against her by Justin Baldoni and other Wayfarer parties. The amount was approximately 5% of the more than $8 million she requested.
U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman approved $363,245.40 in attorneys’ fees and $44,206.35 in litigation costs. The award concerned expenses associated with defending the defamation claim, rather than the entire legal dispute. Court order.
Why Were Blake Lively’s Legal Fees Reduced?
The court accepted her lawyers’ hourly rates as reasonable but found problems with the hours submitted for reimbursement. Billing records did not sufficiently distinguish work on the defamation claim from other legal tasks.
The judge also excluded media-relations work and other expenses that were not necessary to defend that claim. These limits substantially reduced the amount recoverable. Proskauer’s analysis of the ruling.
What Happened in the Justin Baldoni Dispute?
The litigation followed It Ends With Us, which starred Lively and Baldoni, who also directed the film.
Lively brought sexual-harassment and retaliation allegations in December 2024. Baldoni denied the allegations. He and other Wayfarer parties subsequently filed a lawsuit seeking $400 million against Lively, Ryan Reynolds, and others. The defamation claim was dismissed in June 2025. Reuters’ reporting.
On April 2, 2026, the court dismissed Lively’s sexual-harassment claims while allowing certain retaliation-related and contract claims to continue. The parties settled the remaining litigation in May, before the scheduled trial. April court order, Reuters.
What the August 26 Decision Established
The August ruling determined the amount of recoverable legal fees and costs. It was not a new verdict establishing that the underlying harassment allegations were true.
The parties had waived appellate review of the fee decision as part of their settlement. The award itself does not establish that payment has already been made. Court order, Proskauer.