Why is Blake Lively so overrated?

[Anonymous]

Omg no one cares about this BDE fight over who knows the most about the local firms involved. Get a life DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the one who initially criticized the poster who said the law firms weren’t very good, whatever that means, and I responded that I thought they were confusing quality of the practice with size of the firm.

I stand by that statement.

I was actually thinking more of Baldonis lawyer (for the defamation claim at least) but the same holds true of Manatt which is known to be a smallER and more specialized firm with a strong footprint in LA and entertainment.

That’s all. I think we can wrap this up now.

Latham and OMelveny are also LA based firms and OMelveny has long had a Century City office dedicated to serving the entertainment industry, in both contractual matters and litigation. Manatt has been on the decline since their star partners starting dying off in the 1980’s and 1990’s. At that point, they went to a boutique to a more general practice firm through expansion. Wilkie always has been completely mediocre.

You keep missing the point and haven’t shown any reason either Latham or O’Melveny would be better or more ‘top tier’ for these claims. But ok.

I suspect you’re the alleged litigator (troll?) who is insulting other people on here, given the tone of your posts which are needlessly argumentative without any substance.

It’s funny that you don’t realize you’re the troll.

I’m not the one insulting people as ‘not very good lawyers’ and then criticizing firms in practice areas I clearly know little about…

It’s very strange to put quotations marks around a phrase that no one has used.

Here’s the exact quote. Happy?


‘I’m a lawyer and you don’t sound like a very good one. Any half way decent firm can right a strong sounding complaint but you can’t call it strong without reading the other side’s (counterclaim not even filed yet), and they are always limited by how truthful their client is.’

I stand by this. No litigator evaluates a complaint without reading the counterclaim, particularly when the responding party promises to include further documentary evidence in their response.

So then I guess all complaints would end in default because no litigator would ever file an answer.

DP. That’s quite a take! I do judge basic competence from the complaint, and I actually kind of agree that to the extent the complaint points to strong evidence like texts, contemporaneous accounts, witnesses, that can add to the strength. But it’s obvious completely one sided by definition!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the one who initially criticized the poster who said the law firms weren’t very good, whatever that means, and I responded that I thought they were confusing quality of the practice with size of the firm.

I stand by that statement.

I was actually thinking more of Baldonis lawyer (for the defamation claim at least) but the same holds true of Manatt which is known to be a smallER and more specialized firm with a strong footprint in LA and entertainment.

That’s all. I think we can wrap this up now.

Latham and OMelveny are also LA based firms and OMelveny has long had a Century City office dedicated to serving the entertainment industry, in both contractual matters and litigation. Manatt has been on the decline since their star partners starting dying off in the 1980’s and 1990’s. At that point, they went to a boutique to a more general practice firm through expansion. Wilkie always has been completely mediocre.

You keep missing the point and haven’t shown any reason either Latham or O’Melveny would be better or more ‘top tier’ for these claims. But ok.

I suspect you’re the alleged litigator (troll?) who is insulting other people on here, given the tone of your posts which are needlessly argumentative without any substance.

It’s funny that you don’t realize you’re the troll.

I’m not the one insulting people as ‘not very good lawyers’ and then criticizing firms in practice areas I clearly know little about…

It’s very strange to put quotations marks around a phrase that no one has used.

Here’s the exact quote. Happy?


‘I’m a lawyer and you don’t sound like a very good one. Any half way decent firm can right a strong sounding complaint but you can’t call it strong without reading the other side’s (counterclaim not even filed yet), and they are always limited by how truthful their client is.’

I stand by this. No litigator evaluates a complaint without reading the counterclaim, particularly when the responding party promises to include further documentary evidence in their response.

You clearly didn’t read that lawyer’s entire post. Her point was twofold if I recall. She thought the firms were strong in this area AND that they had done a thorough job of providing strong evidence, not just he said/she said claims. And I don’t think she ever claimed to be a litigator, unlike you… 🤪

[Anonymous]

Let’s turn back to how The NY Times may be screwed or how unpopular Blake is on social media. I think the silence of her gossip girl castmates is interesting. She had to go all the way back to the Traveling Pants movie to get a testimonial from cast mates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the one who initially criticized the poster who said the law firms weren’t very good, whatever that means, and I responded that I thought they were confusing quality of the practice with size of the firm.

I stand by that statement.

I was actually thinking more of Baldonis lawyer (for the defamation claim at least) but the same holds true of Manatt which is known to be a smallER and more specialized firm with a strong footprint in LA and entertainment.

That’s all. I think we can wrap this up now.

Latham and OMelveny are also LA based firms and OMelveny has long had a Century City office dedicated to serving the entertainment industry, in both contractual matters and litigation. Manatt has been on the decline since their star partners starting dying off in the 1980’s and 1990’s. At that point, they went to a boutique to a more general practice firm through expansion. Wilkie always has been completely mediocre.

You keep missing the point and haven’t shown any reason either Latham or O’Melveny would be better or more ‘top tier’ for these claims. But ok.

I suspect you’re the alleged litigator (troll?) who is insulting other people on here, given the tone of your posts which are needlessly argumentative without any substance.

O’Melveny and Latham are both major prestige firms that recruit well at T12 law schools… I have never heard of Manatt and Wilkie is OK, but nowhere near O’M or L&W.

Do you workin entertainment or healthcare? Because Manatt is considered very prestigious in those areas. They are pretty small and very focused on SoCal for litigation though, so outside those areas, there is no reason for you to know about them. The recruit more heavily form West coast law schools especially the LA area.

See my other post. Also I never said they were a bad firm, I just don’t consider them top tier. Manatt had been on the decline for a few decades. In their heyday, they were top tier but the lawyers who made them that are long gone.

I also said that one can’t tell the quality of the complaint by the firm who wrote it so I have no idea why someone has been arguing with me about my OPINION of these firms for three pages, making ridiculous and inaccurate argument like they aren’t big firms.

Your initial comment was stupid. Just admit it.

And there is a difference between ‘top tier’ as in overall $ earned/size/breadth of a firm and whether they are a good choice for a particular suit or area of the law. This is especially especially true for plaintiff side work.

I don’t know why you are going on and on about this. Someone said that Blake’s complaint should be given special deference because of the firm(s) they wrote it. My main point was that’s a completely stupid opinion. I also don’t think either Manatt or Wilkie is deserving of particular deference because they are mid tier. That’a my opinion which you are free to disagree with but are not going to change. Just because Manatt started out as an entertainment law boutique doesn’t mean it hasn’t declined in quality.

Where did they say ‘special deference’ should be given? And by saying ‘mid tier’ and ‘top tier’ you sound like an idiot.

The crazy Blake supporter said several times that she was aware of the reputation of the lawyers that wrote the complaint, and based on that knowledge, felt her allegations should be taken as true. I”m sure you can find it if try.

That’s not at all what she said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Omg no one cares about this BDE fight over who knows the most about the local firms involved. Get a life DCUM.

I have weighed in on this and I actually agree. No idea why/how the thread took this term. Because someone noted that Lively's lawyers have good reputations? They do, it's silly to argue otherwise. I don't know who Baldoni hired but I'm guessing they have good reputations too. Guess what, the NYT will also hire top notch attorneys to defend them. I have no idea why this is even a debate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the one who initially criticized the poster who said the law firms weren’t very good, whatever that means, and I responded that I thought they were confusing quality of the practice with size of the firm.

I stand by that statement.

I was actually thinking more of Baldonis lawyer (for the defamation claim at least) but the same holds true of Manatt which is known to be a smallER and more specialized firm with a strong footprint in LA and entertainment.

That’s all. I think we can wrap this up now.

Latham and OMelveny are also LA based firms and OMelveny has long had a Century City office dedicated to serving the entertainment industry, in both contractual matters and litigation. Manatt has been on the decline since their star partners starting dying off in the 1980’s and 1990’s. At that point, they went to a boutique to a more general practice firm through expansion. Wilkie always has been completely mediocre.

You keep missing the point and haven’t shown any reason either Latham or O’Melveny would be better or more ‘top tier’ for these claims. But ok.

I suspect you’re the alleged litigator (troll?) who is insulting other people on here, given the tone of your posts which are needlessly argumentative without any substance.

It’s funny that you don’t realize you’re the troll.

I’m not the one insulting people as ‘not very good lawyers’ and then criticizing firms in practice areas I clearly know little about…

It’s very strange to put quotations marks around a phrase that no one has used.

Here’s the exact quote. Happy?


‘I’m a lawyer and you don’t sound like a very good one. Any half way decent firm can right a strong sounding complaint but you can’t call it strong without reading the other side’s (counterclaim not even filed yet), and they are always limited by how truthful their client is.’

I stand by this. No litigator evaluates a complaint without reading the counterclaim, particularly when the responding party promises to include further documentary evidence in their response.

You clearly didn’t read that lawyer’s entire post. Her point was twofold if I recall. She thought the firms were strong in this area AND that they had done a thorough job of providing strong evidence, not just he said/she said claims. And I don’t think she ever claimed to be a litigator, unlike you… 🤪

She obviously isn’t one and her analysis is lengthy but superficial. Bit who cares, let’s move on from her analysis, it isn’t worth the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let’s turn back to how The NY Times may be screwed or how unpopular Blake is on social media. I think the silence of her gossip girl castmates is interesting. She had to go all the way back to the Traveling Pants movie to get a testimonial from cast mates.

If Trump can crack ABC News for $15 million, it’d be nice to see NYT cracked for the same for this PR smear job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ryan is very clearly a closeted gay man and this is a sham marriage, right? He’s extremely effeminate, dandy, has a lisp, and has that perpetually deceptive and devious look in his eyes.

.

Anonymous wrote:Homophobia is a bad look.

Gay dar and so-called gay face are not homophobic, they are backed up by academic research and casually used by members of the LGBTQ+ community.

STFU

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the one who initially criticized the poster who said the law firms weren’t very good, whatever that means, and I responded that I thought they were confusing quality of the practice with size of the firm.

I stand by that statement.

I was actually thinking more of Baldonis lawyer (for the defamation claim at least) but the same holds true of Manatt which is known to be a smallER and more specialized firm with a strong footprint in LA and entertainment.

That’s all. I think we can wrap this up now.

Latham and OMelveny are also LA based firms and OMelveny has long had a Century City office dedicated to serving the entertainment industry, in both contractual matters and litigation. Manatt has been on the decline since their star partners starting dying off in the 1980’s and 1990’s. At that point, they went to a boutique to a more general practice firm through expansion. Wilkie always has been completely mediocre.

You keep missing the point and haven’t shown any reason either Latham or O’Melveny would be better or more ‘top tier’ for these claims. But ok.

I suspect you’re the alleged litigator (troll?) who is insulting other people on here, given the tone of your posts which are needlessly argumentative without any substance.

O’Melveny and Latham are both major prestige firms that recruit well at T12 law schools… I have never heard of Manatt and Wilkie is OK, but nowhere near O’M or L&W.

Do you workin entertainment or healthcare? Because Manatt is considered very prestigious in those areas. They are pretty small and very focused on SoCal for litigation though, so outside those areas, there is no reason for you to know about them. The recruit more heavily form West coast law schools especially the LA area.

See my other post. Also I never said they were a bad firm, I just don’t consider them top tier. Manatt had been on the decline for a few decades. In their heyday, they were top tier but the lawyers who made them that are long gone.

I also said that one can’t tell the quality of the complaint by the firm who wrote it so I have no idea why someone has been arguing with me about my OPINION of these firms for three pages, making ridiculous and inaccurate argument like they aren’t big firms.

Your initial comment was stupid. Just admit it.

And there is a difference between ‘top tier’ as in overall $ earned/size/breadth of a firm and whether they are a good choice for a particular suit or area of the law. This is especially especially true for plaintiff side work.

I don’t know why you are going on and on about this. Someone said that Blake’s complaint should be given special deference because of the firm(s) they wrote it. My main point was that’s a completely stupid opinion. I also don’t think either Manatt or Wilkie is deserving of particular deference because they are mid tier. That’a my opinion which you are free to disagree with but are not going to change. Just because Manatt started out as an entertainment law boutique doesn’t mean it hasn’t declined in quality.

Where did they say ‘special deference’ should be given? And by saying ‘mid tier’ and ‘top tier’ you sound like an idiot.

The crazy Blake supporter said several times that she was aware of the reputation of the lawyers that wrote the complaint, and based on that knowledge, felt her allegations should be taken as true. I”m sure you can find it if try.

That’s not at all what she said.

I don’t to anyone cares but they can read it themselves if they do. Moving on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s turn back to how The NY Times may be screwed or how unpopular Blake is on social media. I think the silence of her gossip girl castmates is interesting. She had to go all the way back to the Traveling Pants movie to get a testimonial from cast mates.

If Trump can crack ABC News for $15 million, it’d be nice to see NYT cracked for the same for this PR smear job.

Agree, I want a messy public trial though.

[Anonymous]

Has anyone actually seen the movie and read the book? Thoughts on differences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the one who initially criticized the poster who said the law firms weren’t very good, whatever that means, and I responded that I thought they were confusing quality of the practice with size of the firm.

I stand by that statement.

I was actually thinking more of Baldonis lawyer (for the defamation claim at least) but the same holds true of Manatt which is known to be a smallER and more specialized firm with a strong footprint in LA and entertainment.

That’s all. I think we can wrap this up now.

Latham and OMelveny are also LA based firms and OMelveny has long had a Century City office dedicated to serving the entertainment industry, in both contractual matters and litigation. Manatt has been on the decline since their star partners starting dying off in the 1980’s and 1990’s. At that point, they went to a boutique to a more general practice firm through expansion. Wilkie always has been completely mediocre.

You keep missing the point and haven’t shown any reason either Latham or O’Melveny would be better or more ‘top tier’ for these claims. But ok.

I suspect you’re the alleged litigator (troll?) who is insulting other people on here, given the tone of your posts which are needlessly argumentative without any substance.

O’Melveny and Latham are both major prestige firms that recruit well at T12 law schools… I have never heard of Manatt and Wilkie is OK, but nowhere near O’M or L&W.

Do you workin entertainment or healthcare? Because Manatt is considered very prestigious in those areas. They are pretty small and very focused on SoCal for litigation though, so outside those areas, there is no reason for you to know about them. The recruit more heavily form West coast law schools especially the LA area.

See my other post. Also I never said they were a bad firm, I just don’t consider them top tier. Manatt had been on the decline for a few decades. In their heyday, they were top tier but the lawyers who made them that are long gone.

I also said that one can’t tell the quality of the complaint by the firm who wrote it so I have no idea why someone has been arguing with me about my OPINION of these firms for three pages, making ridiculous and inaccurate argument like they aren’t big firms.

Your initial comment was stupid. Just admit it.

And there is a difference between ‘top tier’ as in overall $ earned/size/breadth of a firm and whether they are a good choice for a particular suit or area of the law. This is especially especially true for plaintiff side work.

I don’t know why you are going on and on about this. Someone said that Blake’s complaint should be given special deference because of the firm(s) they wrote it. My main point was that’s a completely stupid opinion. I also don’t think either Manatt or Wilkie is deserving of particular deference because they are mid tier. That’a my opinion which you are free to disagree with but are not going to change. Just because Manatt started out as an entertainment law boutique doesn’t mean it hasn’t declined in quality.

Where did they say ‘special deference’ should be given? And by saying ‘mid tier’ and ‘top tier’ you sound like an idiot.

The crazy Blake supporter said several times that she was aware of the reputation of the lawyers that wrote the complaint, and based on that knowledge, felt her allegations should be taken as true. I”m sure you can find it if try.

That’s not at all what she said.

I'm the one who said it and honestly, my comment about the attorneys was more of an aside. Lively's complaint was well-constructed from a legal standpoint and doesn't hinge on Lively's biased perception of isolated interactions with Baldoni. My point about the lawyers was that they aren't some fly-by-night firm who is going to allege a fact pattern they can't support. I never said they were like THE best firm in the industry and I don't really understand why the thread became a debate about whether Latham or Manatt or O'Melveny has the best entertainment attorneys (when the answer is of course: it depends on what you are hiring them for).

My larger point was that if you read the Lively complaint, they are using a lot of indisputable facts (like whether there were nudity riders in place or whether certain intimate acts were described in the shooting script) to construct a fact pattern that proves harassment. People in the thread have started saying "oh it's a he said/she said." Sometimes that's true with harassment claims. And it's true on some of the discrete claims in Lively's complaint, like whether Baldoni entered her trailer without permission while she was breastfeeding. But most of her claims don't rely on believing her interpretation. They rely on easily proven facts about how Wayfarer and Baldoni conducted the film shoot. It's a smart approach and the complaint is very well constructed for this kind of complaint. If I were still in the business I'd be filing it away for future reference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s turn back to how The NY Times may be screwed or how unpopular Blake is on social media. I think the silence of her gossip girl castmates is interesting. She had to go all the way back to the Traveling Pants movie to get a testimonial from cast mates.

If Trump can crack ABC News for $15 million, it’d be nice to see NYT cracked for the same for this PR smear job.

Earlier lawyer here- agree, the defamation side is very interesting to me. NYT typically fights and they have some good defenses right off the bat, but NYT v Sullivan is in every publication’s minds these days, and no one wants to be the one that risks disturbing that precedent. That’s likely why ABC folded.

[Anonymous]

Again, moving on . . .