Why is Blake Lively so overrated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The original, non Reynolds version was also showed to test audiences and was preferrred. If there was truly anything outrageous in it, there would be abundant witnesses but I doubt that is the case, we would have heard about that.

Also, all the ridiculous outfits Lily wears were picked by Blake. Thank god that has come out because some poor costume designer has had to live with that on her credits for the past year.

That was Baldoni's claim that the test audiences preferred it. Where is the proof to his claim? Everyone else, including Hoover, wanted Blake's.

It tested better. It’s not a he said she said.

Where are the receipts? It's a claim. Since we deny all of Blake's claims his are similarly subject.

Is my understanding that it’s not subjective. There are standards for reading test audience feedback that are very easily verifiable. If his team lies about it, they would be able to call them on it so I don’t know why they would do that.

A lot of Blake's claims are also not subjective but people want to completely discount them as "he said she said" so why is the standard different?

My point is that there are results of the test audience screenings somewhere documented. They’re probably too boring to release in things like the times article. I just don’t know why they would be making them up if it’s so easily verifiable, so I’m betting they are not. Would be pretty ballsy to just lie about something that is so easily verifiable though.

DP. Can you point to where this is claimed? Is it an allegation in his lawsuit against NYT?

[Anonymous]

Worth adding that she was the one to describe herself as sexy FIRST and it was in the context of adding a beanie hat and a cropped top to an outfit , which was something she was advocating. And there was nothing sexy about this look, it was clownish. She seems divorced from reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The original, non Reynolds version was also showed to test audiences and was preferrred. If there was truly anything outrageous in it, there would be abundant witnesses but I doubt that is the case, we would have heard about that.

Also, all the ridiculous outfits Lily wears were picked by Blake. Thank god that has come out because some poor costume designer has had to live with that on her credits for the past year.

That was Baldoni's claim that the test audiences preferred it. Where is the proof to his claim? Everyone else, including Hoover, wanted Blake's.

It tested better. It’s not a he said she said.

Where are the receipts? It's a claim. Since we deny all of Blake's claims his are similarly subject.

Is my understanding that it’s not subjective. There are standards for reading test audience feedback that are very easily verifiable. If his team lies about it, they would be able to call them on it so I don’t know why they would do that.

A lot of Blake's claims are also not subjective but people want to completely discount them as "he said she said" so why is the standard different?

My point is that there are results of the test audience screenings somewhere documented. They’re probably too boring to release in things like the times article. I just don’t know why they would be making them up if it’s so easily verifiable, so I’m betting they are not. Would be pretty ballsy to just lie about something that is so easily verifiable though.

DP. Can you point to where this is claimed? Is it an allegation in his lawsuit against NYT?

I think so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Only a total amateur would believe that certain facts are “indisputable.” And of course, the fact that there was (possibly) no nudity rider doesn’t prove anything. It’s not some kind of per se violation.

Yes, of course some facts are indisputable. All court cases have a set of agreed facts -- you can't take a case to trial where literally everything is in dispute. Parties might argue over what those are prior to trial but there are always some that can be agreed on. The more your legal argument can rest of agreed facts, the better for your case, as there are fewer disputed facts for the jury or judge (in a bench trial) to determine.

Even among disputed facts, it's easier to win if you need to prove something fairly easily proven, like whether the shooting script specified nudity, or whether the intimacy coordinator was on set during a certain scene, than something far more open to interpretation, like whether when an actress texted that she was pumping in her trailer, this could be read as an open invitation to enter her trailer.

Everything about these two paragraphs is super annoying, your constant, half wrong lecturing got tired about 10 pages ago.

Your attempt to control the conversation when it doesn't go your way is super annoying.

[Anonymous]

He also mentions in the complaint that she was asking/demanding to be involved in the film editing with him during the 10 week period the director has the right to be the sole editor by DGA rules. Someone at TikTok researched whether this rule actually exists and it does. Further, strange she would be repeatedly asking to work with him on the edit if their relationship truly had completely broken down at that point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The original, non Reynolds version was also showed to test audiences and was preferrred. If there was truly anything outrageous in it, there would be abundant witnesses but I doubt that is the case, we would have heard about that.

Also, all the ridiculous outfits Lily wears were picked by Blake. Thank god that has come out because some poor costume designer has had to live with that on her credits for the past year.

That was Baldoni's claim that the test audiences preferred it. Where is the proof to his claim? Everyone else, including Hoover, wanted Blake's.

It tested better. It’s not a he said she said.

Where are the receipts? It's a claim. Since we deny all of Blake's claims his are similarly subject.

Is my understanding that it’s not subjective. There are standards for reading test audience feedback that are very easily verifiable. If his team lies about it, they would be able to call them on it so I don’t know why they would do that.

A lot of Blake's claims are also not subjective but people want to completely discount them as "he said she said" so why is the standard different?

My point is that there are results of the test audience screenings somewhere documented. They’re probably too boring to release in things like the times article. I just don’t know why they would be making them up if it’s so easily verifiable, so I’m betting they are not. Would be pretty ballsy to just lie about something that is so easily verifiable though.

DP. Can you point to where this is claimed? Is it an allegation in his lawsuit against NYT?

I’ve only seen it pretty widely reported in the press. Perhaps it’s not part of the suit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Only a total amateur would believe that certain facts are “indisputable.” And of course, the fact that there was (possibly) no nudity rider doesn’t prove anything. It’s not some kind of per se violation.

Yes, of course some facts are indisputable. All court cases have a set of agreed facts -- you can't take a case to trial where literally everything is in dispute. Parties might argue over what those are prior to trial but there are always some that can be agreed on. The more your legal argument can rest of agreed facts, the better for your case, as there are fewer disputed facts for the jury or judge (in a bench trial) to determine.

Even among disputed facts, it's easier to win if you need to prove something fairly easily proven, like whether the shooting script specified nudity, or whether the intimacy coordinator was on set during a certain scene, than something far more open to interpretation, like whether when an actress texted that she was pumping in her trailer, this could be read as an open invitation to enter her trailer.

Everything about these two paragraphs is super annoying, your constant, half wrong lecturing got tired about 10 pages ago.

Your attempt to control the conversation when it doesn't go your way is super annoying.

I nr the person you were “conversing” with. Just an onlooker annoyed with your constant attempts to dominate this thread by repeating the same points.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Only a total amateur would believe that certain facts are “indisputable.” And of course, the fact that there was (possibly) no nudity rider doesn’t prove anything. It’s not some kind of per se violation.

Yes, of course some facts are indisputable. All court cases have a set of agreed facts -- you can't take a case to trial where literally everything is in dispute. Parties might argue over what those are prior to trial but there are always some that can be agreed on. The more your legal argument can rest of agreed facts, the better for your case, as there are fewer disputed facts for the jury or judge (in a bench trial) to determine.

Even among disputed facts, it's easier to win if you need to prove something fairly easily proven, like whether the shooting script specified nudity, or whether the intimacy coordinator was on set during a certain scene, than something far more open to interpretation, like whether when an actress texted that she was pumping in her trailer, this could be read as an open invitation to enter her trailer.

Everything about these two paragraphs is super annoying, your constant, half wrong lecturing got tired about 10 pages ago.

Your attempt to control the conversation when it doesn't go your way is super annoying.

I nr the person you were “conversing” with. Just an onlooker annoyed with your constant attempts to dominate this thread by repeating the same points.

I am also an onlooker. You trying to shut down anyone you don't agree with is very old. It's a discussion board. Stop trying to police it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The original, non Reynolds version was also showed to test audiences and was preferrred. If there was truly anything outrageous in it, there would be abundant witnesses but I doubt that is the case, we would have heard about that.

Also, all the ridiculous outfits Lily wears were picked by Blake. Thank god that has come out because some poor costume designer has had to live with that on her credits for the past year.

That was Baldoni's claim that the test audiences preferred it. Where is the proof to his claim? Everyone else, including Hoover, wanted Blake's.

It tested better. It’s not a he said she said.

Where are the receipts? It's a claim. Since we deny all of Blake's claims his are similarly subject.

Is my understanding that it’s not subjective. There are standards for reading test audience feedback that are very easily verifiable. If his team lies about it, they would be able to call them on it so I don’t know why they would do that.

A lot of Blake's claims are also not subjective but people want to completely discount them as "he said she said" so why is the standard different?

My point is that there are results of the test audience screenings somewhere documented. They’re probably too boring to release in things like the times article. I just don’t know why they would be making them up if it’s so easily verifiable, so I’m betting they are not. Would be pretty ballsy to just lie about something that is so easily verifiable though.

DP. Can you point to where this is claimed? Is it an allegation in his lawsuit against NYT?

I’ve only seen it pretty widely reported in the press. Perhaps it’s not part of the suit.

It is in his complaint. He claims his version tested “significantly” better. I guess they were still stuck with her wacky wardrobe choices in both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Only a total amateur would believe that certain facts are “indisputable.” And of course, the fact that there was (possibly) no nudity rider doesn’t prove anything. It’s not some kind of per se violation.

Yes, of course some facts are indisputable. All court cases have a set of agreed facts -- you can't take a case to trial where literally everything is in dispute. Parties might argue over what those are prior to trial but there are always some that can be agreed on. The more your legal argument can rest of agreed facts, the better for your case, as there are fewer disputed facts for the jury or judge (in a bench trial) to determine.

Even among disputed facts, it's easier to win if you need to prove something fairly easily proven, like whether the shooting script specified nudity, or whether the intimacy coordinator was on set during a certain scene, than something far more open to interpretation, like whether when an actress texted that she was pumping in her trailer, this could be read as an open invitation to enter her trailer.

Everything about these two paragraphs is super annoying, your constant, half wrong lecturing got tired about 10 pages ago.

Your attempt to control the conversation when it doesn't go your way is super annoying.

I nr the person you were “conversing” with. Just an onlooker annoyed with your constant attempts to dominate this thread by repeating the same points.

I am also an onlooker. You trying to shut down anyone you don't agree with is very old. It's a discussion board. Stop trying to police it.

Me three, the lady who keeps lecturing us like we are her law school students should take it down a few notchs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Only a total amateur would believe that certain facts are “indisputable.” And of course, the fact that there was (possibly) no nudity rider doesn’t prove anything. It’s not some kind of per se violation.

Yes, of course some facts are indisputable. All court cases have a set of agreed facts -- you can't take a case to trial where literally everything is in dispute. Parties might argue over what those are prior to trial but there are always some that can be agreed on. The more your legal argument can rest of agreed facts, the better for your case, as there are fewer disputed facts for the jury or judge (in a bench trial) to determine.

Even among disputed facts, it's easier to win if you need to prove something fairly easily proven, like whether the shooting script specified nudity, or whether the intimacy coordinator was on set during a certain scene, than something far more open to interpretation, like whether when an actress texted that she was pumping in her trailer, this could be read as an open invitation to enter her trailer.

Everything about these two paragraphs is super annoying, your constant, half wrong lecturing got tired about 10 pages ago.

Your attempt to control the conversation when it doesn't go your way is super annoying.

I nr the person you were “conversing” with. Just an onlooker annoyed with your constant attempts to dominate this thread by repeating the same points.

I am also an onlooker. You trying to shut down anyone you don't agree with is very old. It's a discussion board. Stop trying to police it.

Me three, the lady who keeps lecturing us like we are her law school students should take it down a few notchs.

One of the lawyers sounds like she knows what she's talking about and another one definitely does not, but doesn't seem to realize it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Only a total amateur would believe that certain facts are “indisputable.” And of course, the fact that there was (possibly) no nudity rider doesn’t prove anything. It’s not some kind of per se violation.

Yes, of course some facts are indisputable. All court cases have a set of agreed facts -- you can't take a case to trial where literally everything is in dispute. Parties might argue over what those are prior to trial but there are always some that can be agreed on. The more your legal argument can rest of agreed facts, the better for your case, as there are fewer disputed facts for the jury or judge (in a bench trial) to determine.

Even among disputed facts, it's easier to win if you need to prove something fairly easily proven, like whether the shooting script specified nudity, or whether the intimacy coordinator was on set during a certain scene, than something far more open to interpretation, like whether when an actress texted that she was pumping in her trailer, this could be read as an open invitation to enter her trailer.

Everything about these two paragraphs is super annoying, your constant, half wrong lecturing got tired about 10 pages ago.

Your attempt to control the conversation when it doesn't go your way is super annoying.

I nr the person you were “conversing” with. Just an onlooker annoyed with your constant attempts to dominate this thread by repeating the same points.

I am also an onlooker. You trying to shut down anyone you don't agree with is very old. It's a discussion board. Stop trying to police it.

Me three, the lady who keeps lecturing us like we are her law school students should take it down a few notchs.

One of the lawyers sounds like she knows what she's talking about and another one definitely does not, but doesn't seem to realize it.

There’s way more than two lawyers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Only a total amateur would believe that certain facts are “indisputable.” And of course, the fact that there was (possibly) no nudity rider doesn’t prove anything. It’s not some kind of per se violation.

Yes, of course some facts are indisputable. All court cases have a set of agreed facts -- you can't take a case to trial where literally everything is in dispute. Parties might argue over what those are prior to trial but there are always some that can be agreed on. The more your legal argument can rest of agreed facts, the better for your case, as there are fewer disputed facts for the jury or judge (in a bench trial) to determine.

Even among disputed facts, it's easier to win if you need to prove something fairly easily proven, like whether the shooting script specified nudity, or whether the intimacy coordinator was on set during a certain scene, than something far more open to interpretation, like whether when an actress texted that she was pumping in her trailer, this could be read as an open invitation to enter her trailer.

Everything about these two paragraphs is super annoying, your constant, half wrong lecturing got tired about 10 pages ago.

Your attempt to control the conversation when it doesn't go your way is super annoying.

I nr the person you were “conversing” with. Just an onlooker annoyed with your constant attempts to dominate this thread by repeating the same points.

I am also an onlooker. You trying to shut down anyone you don't agree with is very old. It's a discussion board. Stop trying to police it.

Me three, the lady who keeps lecturing us like we are her law school students should take it down a few notchs.

One of the lawyers sounds like she knows what she's talking about and another one definitely does not, but doesn't seem to realize it.

There’s way more than two lawyers.

I said another not just the other one. But it’s clear two are a little more prolific than the others.

[Anonymous]

Apart from this thread, Blake’s complaint is being viewed as a near complete fabrication. She and Ryan did not attend the Golden Globes. It’s only going to get worse from here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Apart from this thread, Blake’s complaint is being viewed as a near complete fabrication. She and Ryan did not attend the Golden Globes. It’s only going to get worse from here.

Tiktok isn’t exactly known for being in the right so who cares?