Justin Baldoni's Lawyer Clarifies Why He Called Blake Lively a 'Victim': 'A Lot of People Are Victims Here'

Mar. 15, 2025

Blake Lively on Feb. 16, 2025.Photo:TheStewartofNY/WireImage

TheStewartofNY/WireImage

Justin Baldoni’s lawyer is clarifying his “victim” comment amid the legal battle with his client’sIt Ends With UscostarBlake Lively.Bryan Freedman, who represents Baldoni, 41, in the case heading to trial inMarch 2026, appeared onThe Townpodcastwith host Matthew Belloni on Thursday, March 13.The two discussed issues in theongoing legal conflict, which began when Lively, 37, sued Baldoni, plus his PR team and members of his Wayfarer Studios company, alleging sexual harassment and a retaliatory smear campaign, which he denies. The director filed acountersuitagainst Lively, her husbandRyan Reynoldsand their PR team, alleging defamation and extortion.During a March 6pre-trial conferencewith federal Judge Lewis J. Liman, Lively and Reynolds’ attorney Meryl Conant Governski said, according toDeadline, that both sides' impulse to leak information to the media outweighs complying with a court’s gag order, necessitating an “Attorney’s Eyes Only” order. Freedman responded, as host Belloni reminded him in their podcast interview, that no one “has any intent of harming Ms. Lively in any way.”“My clients have a right to defend themselves," added Freedman in court. “That is in no way abusing the victim.”Blake Lively; Justin Baldoni.Udo Salters/Patrick McMullan; Araya Doheny/Variety via Getty“It is interesting you said ‘not abusing the victim,’ ” Belloni told the lawyer. “Does that mean you agree that Blake is a victim here?”“I actually think that a lot of people are victims here,” responded Freedman. “I think Justin is a victim here, I thinkMelissa Nathanis a victim. I thinkJed Wallaceis a victim. I thinkJen Abelis a victim, I thinkSteve Sarowitzis.Jamey Heathis.”Pressing him, Belloni said, “But you did say Blake is a victim in a court hearing.”“What I said is, ‘This is not attacking the victim,’ ” clarified Freedman. When Belloni said he had “put scare quotes” around the word “victim,” Freedman said, “Yeah. Well, ‘victim’ can be in the eye of the beholder.”Never miss a story — sign up forPEOPLE’s free daily newsletterto stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer​​, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories.Justin Baldoni on Aug. 8, 2024.Nathan Congleton/NBC via GettyLively’s legal team has characterized their client as a victim in multiple statements.In January, theycriticizedBaldoni’s lawsuit, saying, “This is an age-old story: A woman speaks up with concrete evidence of sexual harassment and retaliation and the abuser attempts to turn the tables on the victim. This is what experts call DARVO. Deny. Attack. Reverse Victim Offender.”Today, Liman partiallygranted Lively her requestfor stricter safeguards to prevent private communications within the Hollywood community from leaking to the media. Limiting the scope of the restrictions she sought, the court ruled that an “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” designation can only be applied if their disclosure is “highly likely to cause a significant business, commercial, financial or privacy injury.”

Justin Baldoni’s lawyer is clarifying his “victim” comment amid the legal battle with his client’sIt Ends With UscostarBlake Lively.

Bryan Freedman, who represents Baldoni, 41, in the case heading to trial inMarch 2026, appeared onThe Townpodcastwith host Matthew Belloni on Thursday, March 13.

The two discussed issues in theongoing legal conflict, which began when Lively, 37, sued Baldoni, plus his PR team and members of his Wayfarer Studios company, alleging sexual harassment and a retaliatory smear campaign, which he denies. The director filed acountersuitagainst Lively, her husbandRyan Reynoldsand their PR team, alleging defamation and extortion.

During a March 6pre-trial conferencewith federal Judge Lewis J. Liman, Lively and Reynolds’ attorney Meryl Conant Governski said, according toDeadline, that both sides' impulse to leak information to the media outweighs complying with a court’s gag order, necessitating an “Attorney’s Eyes Only” order. Freedman responded, as host Belloni reminded him in their podcast interview, that no one “has any intent of harming Ms. Lively in any way.”

“My clients have a right to defend themselves,” added Freedman in court. “That is in no way abusing the victim.”

Blake Lively; Justin Baldoni.Udo Salters/Patrick McMullan; Araya Doheny/Variety via Getty

Udo Salters/Patrick McMullan; Araya Doheny/Variety via Getty

“It is interesting you said ‘not abusing the victim,’ ” Belloni told the lawyer. “Does that mean you agree that Blake is a victim here?”

“I actually think that a lot of people are victims here,” responded Freedman. “I think Justin is a victim here, I thinkMelissa Nathanis a victim. I thinkJed Wallaceis a victim. I thinkJen Abelis a victim, I thinkSteve Sarowitzis.Jamey Heathis.”

Pressing him, Belloni said, “But you did say Blake is a victim in a court hearing.”

“What I said is, ‘This is not attacking the victim,’ ” clarified Freedman. When Belloni said he had “put scare quotes” around the word “victim,” Freedman said, “Yeah. Well, ‘victim’ can be in the eye of the beholder.”

Never miss a story — sign up forPEOPLE’s free daily newsletterto stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer​​, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories.

Justin Baldoni on Aug. 8, 2024.Nathan Congleton/NBC via Getty

Nathan Congleton/NBC via Getty

Lively’s legal team has characterized their client as a victim in multiple statements.

In January, theycriticizedBaldoni’s lawsuit, saying, “This is an age-old story: A woman speaks up with concrete evidence of sexual harassment and retaliation and the abuser attempts to turn the tables on the victim. This is what experts call DARVO. Deny. Attack. Reverse Victim Offender.”

Today, Liman partiallygranted Lively her requestfor stricter safeguards to prevent private communications within the Hollywood community from leaking to the media. Limiting the scope of the restrictions she sought, the court ruled that an “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” designation can only be applied if their disclosure is “highly likely to cause a significant business, commercial, financial or privacy injury.”

source: people.com