Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don't get the personal animus shown here towards Freedman. Gottlieb has been far more nasty in his pleadings, and refusing to agree to a first request for an extension is not normal practice. Being a bit of a blowhard is pretty much a character trait for plaintiff attorneys and will be something the judge sees day in and day out. It certainly isn't something that will "turn him against" Freedman as one poster hopes.

I wouldn't say I have "personal" animus towards Freedman, but as a lawyer I've known many like him and it's one of the reasons I left litigation. It is not a style or personality type I enjoy, so I'm predisposed to dislike him. Also early in following this case, I read this profile of him (from last summer), and there's a lot of details in there that give me the ick:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/entertainment-lawyer-bryan-freedman-hollywood-dark-knight-1235919993/

I do think he's an effective lawyer for the kind of cases he takes on and I don't think he's dumb. But I cannot stand his approach to the media and I find his personality grating.

I also happened to have a lot of respect for Gottlieb based on some of his prior pro bono work (for instance defending GA poll workers against attacks from Giuliani after the 2020 election) and his style is preferable to me -- more restrained and professional IMO.

I just don't enjoy bombastic lawyers unless they are funny. Freedman is a specific kind of litigator, a media-savvy pitbull. I've known others like him. It is effective but I don't enjoy it. That's all.

DP, who listened to the PO hearing, who doesn’t like Freedman and makes somewhat hostile posts about him here. I have worked with (and against) other attorneys who are openly hostile to opposing counsel from the starting point (rather than having such a take on opposing counsel be earned over time due to dirty tricks or whatever), and it’s never good. These have always been the worst attorneys to deal with in my career and have been uniformly terrible people. Their egos cannot be appeased and even when they are on your side, they are impossible to work with.

The other thing I’ve heard about Freedman specifically is that he files things prematurely before he has the facts to back them up, expecting to gain those facts through discovery. That’s not the way complaints are supposed to work — you’re supposed to have the basics to support your claim in hand before filing. You shouldn’t be signing court filings that are guesses. But he doesn’t see a problem with that.

PP here and one of my issues with Freedman is that he has a history of doing things that I think are unethical with respect to the media. For instance in that article I linked to, they mention a case he handled against Bravo where he went on TMZ and waived around a document with the title "Slave Contract," implying that this was one of the contracts with Bravo at issue in his case. Later it turned out that was a prop contract that had nothing to do with the case. When I practiced, I encountered lawyers like this who have very loose relationships with truth and ethics and it's just so far from who I am as a person and a lawyer, it really drove me crazy. There is a whole school of thought in litigation that it's okay to pushed the boundaries of professional or personal ethics in order to zealously advocate for your client, he's far from alone in this. I dislike it and it wore me down over time and eventually I just decided I didn't want to spend so much of my professional life engaged in conflict with people who had such a different approach to me.

Lawyers disagree on this. I have old colleagues I like and respect who are not bothered by this stuff. Everyone is different. But for me, Freedman crosses a line. I feel similarly about his "Exhibit A" (which is just clearly a violation of procedural rules and is almost certainly going to be stricken at some point) and about some of the "leaks" or "receipts" Freedman has produced that I think are intentionally misleading.

You don’t seem cut out for litigation and that is reflected in your analysis.

Not being "cut out for" the kind of litigation where people lie about "slave contracts" to the press in order to undercut the opposition is a good thing.

It's like saying someone isn't "cut out for" dirty political campaigns. It means you're too decent to pull this crap.

Agree. The PP putting this lawyer down is a jerk, and I note nobody is commenting about how they love working with attorneys who are like Freedman. I think most of the pro-Baldoners left on this thread are not attorneys and don’t really know what they’re talking about tbh.

And you’d be wrong. I am, and I can tell there is at least one other pro Baldoni lawyer poster on just this page. However, I do appreciate that the two most prolific Lively posters have confirmed what we have long known, neither are litigators.

I litigate. So let me know what you think of those ROG responses. Totally normal, eh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don't get the personal animus shown here towards Freedman. Gottlieb has been far more nasty in his pleadings, and refusing to agree to a first request for an extension is not normal practice. Being a bit of a blowhard is pretty much a character trait for plaintiff attorneys and will be something the judge sees day in and day out. It certainly isn't something that will "turn him against" Freedman as one poster hopes.

I wouldn't say I have "personal" animus towards Freedman, but as a lawyer I've known many like him and it's one of the reasons I left litigation. It is not a style or personality type I enjoy, so I'm predisposed to dislike him. Also early in following this case, I read this profile of him (from last summer), and there's a lot of details in there that give me the ick:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/entertainment-lawyer-bryan-freedman-hollywood-dark-knight-1235919993/

I do think he's an effective lawyer for the kind of cases he takes on and I don't think he's dumb. But I cannot stand his approach to the media and I find his personality grating.

I also happened to have a lot of respect for Gottlieb based on some of his prior pro bono work (for instance defending GA poll workers against attacks from Giuliani after the 2020 election) and his style is preferable to me -- more restrained and professional IMO.

I just don't enjoy bombastic lawyers unless they are funny. Freedman is a specific kind of litigator, a media-savvy pitbull. I've known others like him. It is effective but I don't enjoy it. That's all.

What sort of law do you practice if you left litigation?

I will argue that bringing this case in the first place for BL wasn’t particularly restrained or professional of Gottlieb. It’s a crap case and he hasn’t done right by his client. But he’s certainly making a boatload off of this.

It’s nice he does pro bono work and all, but that’s par for the course at big firms, they’re expected to. And he obviously chose something that would bring good PR to the firm. I don’t think his motivations were as charitable as you assume.

If Gottlieb had anything to do with the VanZan sham litigation, and I think he did, that is a million degrees worse than anything Freedman did. And just to cut off the inevitable responses, it was a sham because (1) the entity of the defendants were known, and Doe defendants should not have been used, and (2) Van Zan had no standing with respect to any of the claims it purported to bring.

And 3) Baldoni and his co-dependants were never notified about the Vanzan suit.

Yes another good point. Blake’s lawyers should be sanctioned for this, but let’s hear more about how Freedman is too bombastic.

If this was unethical or otherwise wrong, then Freedman sure ought to be moving to disqualify these lawyers from the case, or moving to strike the evidence obtained by said subpoenas, or otherwise bringing the matter to Judge Lima ‘s attention. As it turns out, Freedman may have a bit of a dilemma here since he has used similar subpoenas in cases of his own.

But anyway, if it’s wrong, one thing Freedman should not be doing is continuing to serve discovery on a law firm that Freedman thinks has broken some serious ethical boundary without bringing the matter to the judge’s attention. And yet, Freedman does absolutely mothing even though he commented to the press about this at least a week ago, maybe more.

Wait and see. He isn’t going to do anything until documents, including the subpoena, are turned over in discovery. Can’t do any of this based on newspaper coverage. Sort of litigation 101.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don't get the personal animus shown here towards Freedman. Gottlieb has been far more nasty in his pleadings, and refusing to agree to a first request for an extension is not normal practice. Being a bit of a blowhard is pretty much a character trait for plaintiff attorneys and will be something the judge sees day in and day out. It certainly isn't something that will "turn him against" Freedman as one poster hopes.

I wouldn't say I have "personal" animus towards Freedman, but as a lawyer I've known many like him and it's one of the reasons I left litigation. It is not a style or personality type I enjoy, so I'm predisposed to dislike him. Also early in following this case, I read this profile of him (from last summer), and there's a lot of details in there that give me the ick:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/entertainment-lawyer-bryan-freedman-hollywood-dark-knight-1235919993/

I do think he's an effective lawyer for the kind of cases he takes on and I don't think he's dumb. But I cannot stand his approach to the media and I find his personality grating.

I also happened to have a lot of respect for Gottlieb based on some of his prior pro bono work (for instance defending GA poll workers against attacks from Giuliani after the 2020 election) and his style is preferable to me -- more restrained and professional IMO.

I just don't enjoy bombastic lawyers unless they are funny. Freedman is a specific kind of litigator, a media-savvy pitbull. I've known others like him. It is effective but I don't enjoy it. That's all.

DP, who listened to the PO hearing, who doesn’t like Freedman and makes somewhat hostile posts about him here. I have worked with (and against) other attorneys who are openly hostile to opposing counsel from the starting point (rather than having such a take on opposing counsel be earned over time due to dirty tricks or whatever), and it’s never good. These have always been the worst attorneys to deal with in my career and have been uniformly terrible people. Their egos cannot be appeased and even when they are on your side, they are impossible to work with.

The other thing I’ve heard about Freedman specifically is that he files things prematurely before he has the facts to back them up, expecting to gain those facts through discovery. That’s not the way complaints are supposed to work — you’re supposed to have the basics to support your claim in hand before filing. You shouldn’t be signing court filings that are guesses. But he doesn’t see a problem with that.

PP here and one of my issues with Freedman is that he has a history of doing things that I think are unethical with respect to the media. For instance in that article I linked to, they mention a case he handled against Bravo where he went on TMZ and waived around a document with the title "Slave Contract," implying that this was one of the contracts with Bravo at issue in his case. Later it turned out that was a prop contract that had nothing to do with the case. When I practiced, I encountered lawyers like this who have very loose relationships with truth and ethics and it's just so far from who I am as a person and a lawyer, it really drove me crazy. There is a whole school of thought in litigation that it's okay to pushed the boundaries of professional or personal ethics in order to zealously advocate for your client, he's far from alone in this. I dislike it and it wore me down over time and eventually I just decided I didn't want to spend so much of my professional life engaged in conflict with people who had such a different approach to me.

Lawyers disagree on this. I have old colleagues I like and respect who are not bothered by this stuff. Everyone is different. But for me, Freedman crosses a line. I feel similarly about his "Exhibit A" (which is just clearly a violation of procedural rules and is almost certainly going to be stricken at some point) and about some of the "leaks" or "receipts" Freedman has produced that I think are intentionally misleading.

You don’t seem cut out for litigation and that is reflected in your analysis.

Not being "cut out for" the kind of litigation where people lie about "slave contracts" to the press in order to undercut the opposition is a good thing.

It's like saying someone isn't "cut out for" dirty political campaigns. It means you're too decent to pull this crap.

Agree. The PP putting this lawyer down is a jerk, and I note nobody is commenting about how they love working with attorneys who are like Freedman. I think most of the pro-Baldoners left on this thread are not attorneys and don’t really know what they’re talking about tbh.

And you’d be wrong. I am, and I can tell there is at least one other pro Baldoni lawyer poster on just this page. However, I do appreciate that the two most prolific Lively posters have confirmed what we have long known, neither are litigators.

I litigate. So let me know what you think of those ROG responses. Totally normal, eh?

You already admitted you didn’t. But please continue for another 50 pages so we can all tune you out again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone else notice that Blake’s lawyer said the retaliation is the core of the case? I honestly read that as suggesting that even her lawyers know the actual SH claims are weak. Another telling statement in Gottlieb’s interview was that he said they “expect” and “hope” to focus on the smear campaign in discovery, which to me is an admission that they don’t actually have evidence of a smear campaign.

This is almost verbatim how I interpreted as well.

Here’s my prediction on Blake’s lawyers legal strategy, especially after that people magazine interview where Gottlieb called the retaliation the core of the case. If this thing goes all the way to trial, they’re going to start pivoting away from focusing on the harassment. They’re going to tell the jury “it doesn’t matter” whether or not Blake’s claims meet the legal threshold of harassment (because they clearly don’t) and they’re going to say Blake gets protection just for making the claims regardless of the validity of the claims. If they can prove a smear campaign (which I don’t think they’ll be able to but let’s just assume for the moment) this may actually be true under the law (i.e. no retaliation for making a complaint regardless of the validity of the complaint).

The problem is juries are human and it’s going to be pretty hard to convince them to punish Justin for “retaliation” if they see the harassment claims as bogus. This legal strategy will also play into Justin’s defense and countersuit, which is that the SH claims were made in bad faith to extort the WF parties.

You heard it here first lol. Mark my words. Even though Blake’s PR strategy is all about SH and giving women a voice, in court her lawyers are going to say “look elsewhere, don’t focus on the SH”.

That's exactly the play I believe they're going to do. And that's IF Blake goes through with it. I think she's goint to pull the mental health card at the last minute and settle. But we'll see. Good analyzation of the strategy.

Some of us said this 200+ pages ago. They have no SH case, and retaliation is the only thing holding up her case.

The mere suggestion of retaliation without substantive evidence to prove it is just an assertion of fact, but not a fact that’s provable.

I can’t understand at this point why Blake and Ryan won’t just call it a day and pay Justin his $400k. They have nothing. Why belabor this and drive up legal costs when you don’t have any evidence to substantiate your claims?

Could a jury cite a higher amount for damages , higher than the $400 million?

Agree, not sure why the Lively posters feel the need to post endlessly. Her case is ultimately very flawed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don't get the personal animus shown here towards Freedman. Gottlieb has been far more nasty in his pleadings, and refusing to agree to a first request for an extension is not normal practice. Being a bit of a blowhard is pretty much a character trait for plaintiff attorneys and will be something the judge sees day in and day out. It certainly isn't something that will "turn him against" Freedman as one poster hopes.

I wouldn't say I have "personal" animus towards Freedman, but as a lawyer I've known many like him and it's one of the reasons I left litigation. It is not a style or personality type I enjoy, so I'm predisposed to dislike him. Also early in following this case, I read this profile of him (from last summer), and there's a lot of details in there that give me the ick:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/entertainment-lawyer-bryan-freedman-hollywood-dark-knight-1235919993/

I do think he's an effective lawyer for the kind of cases he takes on and I don't think he's dumb. But I cannot stand his approach to the media and I find his personality grating.

I also happened to have a lot of respect for Gottlieb based on some of his prior pro bono work (for instance defending GA poll workers against attacks from Giuliani after the 2020 election) and his style is preferable to me -- more restrained and professional IMO.

I just don't enjoy bombastic lawyers unless they are funny. Freedman is a specific kind of litigator, a media-savvy pitbull. I've known others like him. It is effective but I don't enjoy it. That's all.

DP, who listened to the PO hearing, who doesn’t like Freedman and makes somewhat hostile posts about him here. I have worked with (and against) other attorneys who are openly hostile to opposing counsel from the starting point (rather than having such a take on opposing counsel be earned over time due to dirty tricks or whatever), and it’s never good. These have always been the worst attorneys to deal with in my career and have been uniformly terrible people. Their egos cannot be appeased and even when they are on your side, they are impossible to work with.

The other thing I’ve heard about Freedman specifically is that he files things prematurely before he has the facts to back them up, expecting to gain those facts through discovery. That’s not the way complaints are supposed to work — you’re supposed to have the basics to support your claim in hand before filing. You shouldn’t be signing court filings that are guesses. But he doesn’t see a problem with that.

PP here and one of my issues with Freedman is that he has a history of doing things that I think are unethical with respect to the media. For instance in that article I linked to, they mention a case he handled against Bravo where he went on TMZ and waived around a document with the title "Slave Contract," implying that this was one of the contracts with Bravo at issue in his case. Later it turned out that was a prop contract that had nothing to do with the case. When I practiced, I encountered lawyers like this who have very loose relationships with truth and ethics and it's just so far from who I am as a person and a lawyer, it really drove me crazy. There is a whole school of thought in litigation that it's okay to pushed the boundaries of professional or personal ethics in order to zealously advocate for your client, he's far from alone in this. I dislike it and it wore me down over time and eventually I just decided I didn't want to spend so much of my professional life engaged in conflict with people who had such a different approach to me.

Lawyers disagree on this. I have old colleagues I like and respect who are not bothered by this stuff. Everyone is different. But for me, Freedman crosses a line. I feel similarly about his "Exhibit A" (which is just clearly a violation of procedural rules and is almost certainly going to be stricken at some point) and about some of the "leaks" or "receipts" Freedman has produced that I think are intentionally misleading.

You don’t seem cut out for litigation and that is reflected in your analysis.

Not being "cut out for" the kind of litigation where people lie about "slave contracts" to the press in order to undercut the opposition is a good thing.

It's like saying someone isn't "cut out for" dirty political campaigns. It means you're too decent to pull this crap.

Agree. The PP putting this lawyer down is a jerk, and I note nobody is commenting about how they love working with attorneys who are like Freedman. I think most of the pro-Baldoners left on this thread are not attorneys and don’t really know what they’re talking about tbh.

And you’d be wrong. I am, and I can tell there is at least one other pro Baldoni lawyer poster on just this page. However, I do appreciate that the two most prolific Lively posters have confirmed what we have long known, neither are litigators.

I litigate. So let me know what you think of those ROG responses. Totally normal, eh?

This is again missing the forest for the trees. Suppose they are inadequate? He’ll lose a motion to compel, write some bullshit vague but somewhat more detailed response and it won’t matter an iota for the outcome of this case. But if you want to waste your time on this, go ahead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone else notice that Blake’s lawyer said the retaliation is the core of the case? I honestly read that as suggesting that even her lawyers know the actual SH claims are weak. Another telling statement in Gottlieb’s interview was that he said they “expect” and “hope” to focus on the smear campaign in discovery, which to me is an admission that they don’t actually have evidence of a smear campaign.

This is almost verbatim how I interpreted as well.

Here’s my prediction on Blake’s lawyers legal strategy, especially after that people magazine interview where Gottlieb called the retaliation the core of the case. If this thing goes all the way to trial, they’re going to start pivoting away from focusing on the harassment. They’re going to tell the jury “it doesn’t matter” whether or not Blake’s claims meet the legal threshold of harassment (because they clearly don’t) and they’re going to say Blake gets protection just for making the claims regardless of the validity of the claims. If they can prove a smear campaign (which I don’t think they’ll be able to but let’s just assume for the moment) this may actually be true under the law (i.e. no retaliation for making a complaint regardless of the validity of the complaint).

The problem is juries are human and it’s going to be pretty hard to convince them to punish Justin for “retaliation” if they see the harassment claims as bogus. This legal strategy will also play into Justin’s defense and countersuit, which is that the SH claims were made in bad faith to extort the WF parties.

You heard it here first lol. Mark my words. Even though Blake’s PR strategy is all about SH and giving women a voice, in court her lawyers are going to say “look elsewhere, don’t focus on the SH”.

That's exactly the play I believe they're going to do. And that's IF Blake goes through with it. I think she's goint to pull the mental health card at the last minute and settle. But we'll see. Good analyzation of the strategy.

Some of us said this 200+ pages ago. They have no SH case, and retaliation is the only thing holding up her case.

The mere suggestion of retaliation without substantive evidence to prove it is just an assertion of fact, but not a fact that’s provable.

I can’t understand at this point why Blake and Ryan won’t just call it a day and pay Justin his $400k. They have nothing. Why belabor this and drive up legal costs when you don’t have any evidence to substantiate your claims?

Could a jury cite a higher amount for damages , higher than the $400 million?

Agree, not sure why the Lively posters feel the need to post endlessly. Her case is ultimately very flawed.

Whereas the pro-Baldoni people posting on here relentlessly day after day even though Baldoni is likely to see many of his claims dismissed at the MTD stage and his lawyers have admitted they still lack evidence for other claims and therefore cannot file a SAC until further into discovery or totally sane. Hmm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don't get the personal animus shown here towards Freedman. Gottlieb has been far more nasty in his pleadings, and refusing to agree to a first request for an extension is not normal practice. Being a bit of a blowhard is pretty much a character trait for plaintiff attorneys and will be something the judge sees day in and day out. It certainly isn't something that will "turn him against" Freedman as one poster hopes.

I wouldn't say I have "personal" animus towards Freedman, but as a lawyer I've known many like him and it's one of the reasons I left litigation. It is not a style or personality type I enjoy, so I'm predisposed to dislike him. Also early in following this case, I read this profile of him (from last summer), and there's a lot of details in there that give me the ick:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/entertainment-lawyer-bryan-freedman-hollywood-dark-knight-1235919993/

I do think he's an effective lawyer for the kind of cases he takes on and I don't think he's dumb. But I cannot stand his approach to the media and I find his personality grating.

I also happened to have a lot of respect for Gottlieb based on some of his prior pro bono work (for instance defending GA poll workers against attacks from Giuliani after the 2020 election) and his style is preferable to me -- more restrained and professional IMO.

I just don't enjoy bombastic lawyers unless they are funny. Freedman is a specific kind of litigator, a media-savvy pitbull. I've known others like him. It is effective but I don't enjoy it. That's all.

DP, who listened to the PO hearing, who doesn’t like Freedman and makes somewhat hostile posts about him here. I have worked with (and against) other attorneys who are openly hostile to opposing counsel from the starting point (rather than having such a take on opposing counsel be earned over time due to dirty tricks or whatever), and it’s never good. These have always been the worst attorneys to deal with in my career and have been uniformly terrible people. Their egos cannot be appeased and even when they are on your side, they are impossible to work with.

The other thing I’ve heard about Freedman specifically is that he files things prematurely before he has the facts to back them up, expecting to gain those facts through discovery. That’s not the way complaints are supposed to work — you’re supposed to have the basics to support your claim in hand before filing. You shouldn’t be signing court filings that are guesses. But he doesn’t see a problem with that.

PP here and one of my issues with Freedman is that he has a history of doing things that I think are unethical with respect to the media. For instance in that article I linked to, they mention a case he handled against Bravo where he went on TMZ and waived around a document with the title "Slave Contract," implying that this was one of the contracts with Bravo at issue in his case. Later it turned out that was a prop contract that had nothing to do with the case. When I practiced, I encountered lawyers like this who have very loose relationships with truth and ethics and it's just so far from who I am as a person and a lawyer, it really drove me crazy. There is a whole school of thought in litigation that it's okay to pushed the boundaries of professional or personal ethics in order to zealously advocate for your client, he's far from alone in this. I dislike it and it wore me down over time and eventually I just decided I didn't want to spend so much of my professional life engaged in conflict with people who had such a different approach to me.

Lawyers disagree on this. I have old colleagues I like and respect who are not bothered by this stuff. Everyone is different. But for me, Freedman crosses a line. I feel similarly about his "Exhibit A" (which is just clearly a violation of procedural rules and is almost certainly going to be stricken at some point) and about some of the "leaks" or "receipts" Freedman has produced that I think are intentionally misleading.

You don’t seem cut out for litigation and that is reflected in your analysis.

Not being "cut out for" the kind of litigation where people lie about "slave contracts" to the press in order to undercut the opposition is a good thing.

It's like saying someone isn't "cut out for" dirty political campaigns. It means you're too decent to pull this crap.

Agree. The PP putting this lawyer down is a jerk, and I note nobody is commenting about how they love working with attorneys who are like Freedman. I think most of the pro-Baldoners left on this thread are not attorneys and don’t really know what they’re talking about tbh.

And you’d be wrong. I am, and I can tell there is at least one other pro Baldoni lawyer poster on just this page. However, I do appreciate that the two most prolific Lively posters have confirmed what we have long known, neither are litigators.

I litigate. So let me know what you think of those ROG responses. Totally normal, eh?

You already admitted you didn’t. But please continue for another 50 pages so we can all tune you out again.

Nah, I litigate. I don’t always call myself “a litigator” because for the kinds of clients we handle, I am often not the one standing up in court at this stage of my career. But I respond to interrogatories, discovery, I write briefs, I prep for and take depositions, I work with experts. and I have stood up in court and made arguments for sure. Let me know what you do, since you don’t give any information on that.

[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:I really don't get the personal animus shown here towards Freedman. Gottlieb has been far more nasty in his pleadings, and refusing to agree to a first request for an extension is not normal practice. Being a bit of a blowhard is pretty much a character trait for plaintiff attorneys and will be something the judge sees day in and day out. It certainly isn't something that will "turn him against" Freedman as one poster hopes.

I wouldn't say I have "personal" animus towards Freedman, but as a lawyer I've known many like him and it's one of the reasons I left litigation. It is not a style or personality type I enjoy, so I'm predisposed to dislike him. Also early in following this case, I read this profile of him (from last summer), and there's a lot of details in there that give me the ick:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/entertainment-lawyer-bryan-freedman-hollywood-dark-knight-1235919993/

I do think he's an effective lawyer for the kind of cases he takes on and I don't think he's dumb. But I cannot stand his approach to the media and I find his personality grating.

I also happened to have a lot of respect for Gottlieb based on some of his prior pro bono work (for instance defending GA poll workers against attacks from Giuliani after the 2020 election) and his style is preferable to me -- more restrained and professional IMO.

I just don't enjoy bombastic lawyers unless they are funny. Freedman is a specific kind of litigator, a media-savvy pitbull. I've known others like him. It is effective but I don't enjoy it. That's all.

DP, who listened to the PO hearing, who doesn’t like Freedman and makes somewhat hostile posts about him here. I have worked with (and against) other attorneys who are openly hostile to opposing counsel from the starting point (rather than having such a take on opposing counsel be earned over time due to dirty tricks or whatever), and it’s never good. These have always been the worst attorneys to deal with in my career and have been uniformly terrible people. Their egos cannot be appeased and even when they are on your side, they are impossible to work with.

The other thing I’ve heard about Freedman specifically is that he files things prematurely before he has the facts to back them up, expecting to gain those facts through discovery. That’s not the way complaints are supposed to work — you’re supposed to have the basics to support your claim in hand before filing. You shouldn’t be signing court filings that are guesses. But he doesn’t see a problem with that.

PP here and one of my issues with Freedman is that he has a history of doing things that I think are unethical with respect to the media. For instance in that article I linked to, they mention a case he handled against Bravo where he went on TMZ and waived around a document with the title "Slave Contract," implying that this was one of the contracts with Bravo at issue in his case. Later it turned out that was a prop contract that had nothing to do with the case. When I practiced, I encountered lawyers like this who have very loose relationships with truth and ethics and it's just so far from who I am as a person and a lawyer, it really drove me crazy. There is a whole school of thought in litigation that it's okay to pushed the boundaries of professional or personal ethics in order to zealously advocate for your client, he's far from alone in this. I dislike it and it wore me down over time and eventually I just decided I didn't want to spend so much of my professional life engaged in conflict with people who had such a different approach to me.

Lawyers disagree on this. I have old colleagues I like and respect who are not bothered by this stuff. Everyone is different. But for me, Freedman crosses a line. I feel similarly about his "Exhibit A" (which is just clearly a violation of procedural rules and is almost certainly going to be stricken at some point) and about some of the "leaks" or "receipts" Freedman has produced that I think are intentionally misleading.

You don’t seem cut out for litigation and that is reflected in your analysis.

Not being "cut out for" the kind of litigation where people lie about "slave contracts" to the press in order to undercut the opposition is a good thing.

It's like saying someone isn't "cut out for" dirty political campaigns. It means you're too decent to pull this crap.

Agree. The PP putting this lawyer down is a jerk, and I note nobody is commenting about how they love working with attorneys who are like Freedman. I think most of the pro-Baldoners left on this thread are not attorneys and don’t really know what they’re talking about tbh.

And you’d be wrong. I am, and I can tell there is at least one other pro Baldoni lawyer poster on just this page. However, I do appreciate that the two most prolific Lively posters have confirmed what we have long known, neither are litigators.

I litigate. So let me know what you think of those ROG responses. Totally normal, eh?

You already admitted you didn’t. But please continue for another 50 pages so we can all tune you out again.

Nah, I litigate. I don’t always call myself “a litigator” because for the kinds of clients we handle, I am often not the one standing up in court at this stage of my career. But I respond to interrogatories, discovery, I write briefs, I prep for and take depositions, I work with experts. and I have stood up in court and made arguments for sure. Let me know what you do, since you don’t give any information on that.

I spent 15 years in litigation at two T10 law firms that actual take cases to court, worked as a litigator in federal government and am currently an AAG.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don't get the personal animus shown here towards Freedman. Gottlieb has been far more nasty in his pleadings, and refusing to agree to a first request for an extension is not normal practice. Being a bit of a blowhard is pretty much a character trait for plaintiff attorneys and will be something the judge sees day in and day out. It certainly isn't something that will "turn him against" Freedman as one poster hopes.

I wouldn't say I have "personal" animus towards Freedman, but as a lawyer I've known many like him and it's one of the reasons I left litigation. It is not a style or personality type I enjoy, so I'm predisposed to dislike him. Also early in following this case, I read this profile of him (from last summer), and there's a lot of details in there that give me the ick:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/entertainment-lawyer-bryan-freedman-hollywood-dark-knight-1235919993/

I do think he's an effective lawyer for the kind of cases he takes on and I don't think he's dumb. But I cannot stand his approach to the media and I find his personality grating.

I also happened to have a lot of respect for Gottlieb based on some of his prior pro bono work (for instance defending GA poll workers against attacks from Giuliani after the 2020 election) and his style is preferable to me -- more restrained and professional IMO.

I just don't enjoy bombastic lawyers unless they are funny. Freedman is a specific kind of litigator, a media-savvy pitbull. I've known others like him. It is effective but I don't enjoy it. That's all.

DP, who listened to the PO hearing, who doesn’t like Freedman and makes somewhat hostile posts about him here. I have worked with (and against) other attorneys who are openly hostile to opposing counsel from the starting point (rather than having such a take on opposing counsel be earned over time due to dirty tricks or whatever), and it’s never good. These have always been the worst attorneys to deal with in my career and have been uniformly terrible people. Their egos cannot be appeased and even when they are on your side, they are impossible to work with.

The other thing I’ve heard about Freedman specifically is that he files things prematurely before he has the facts to back them up, expecting to gain those facts through discovery. That’s not the way complaints are supposed to work — you’re supposed to have the basics to support your claim in hand before filing. You shouldn’t be signing court filings that are guesses. But he doesn’t see a problem with that.

PP here and one of my issues with Freedman is that he has a history of doing things that I think are unethical with respect to the media. For instance in that article I linked to, they mention a case he handled against Bravo where he went on TMZ and waived around a document with the title "Slave Contract," implying that this was one of the contracts with Bravo at issue in his case. Later it turned out that was a prop contract that had nothing to do with the case. When I practiced, I encountered lawyers like this who have very loose relationships with truth and ethics and it's just so far from who I am as a person and a lawyer, it really drove me crazy. There is a whole school of thought in litigation that it's okay to pushed the boundaries of professional or personal ethics in order to zealously advocate for your client, he's far from alone in this. I dislike it and it wore me down over time and eventually I just decided I didn't want to spend so much of my professional life engaged in conflict with people who had such a different approach to me.

Lawyers disagree on this. I have old colleagues I like and respect who are not bothered by this stuff. Everyone is different. But for me, Freedman crosses a line. I feel similarly about his "Exhibit A" (which is just clearly a violation of procedural rules and is almost certainly going to be stricken at some point) and about some of the "leaks" or "receipts" Freedman has produced that I think are intentionally misleading.

You don’t seem cut out for litigation and that is reflected in your analysis.

Not being "cut out for" the kind of litigation where people lie about "slave contracts" to the press in order to undercut the opposition is a good thing.

It's like saying someone isn't "cut out for" dirty political campaigns. It means you're too decent to pull this crap.

Agree. The PP putting this lawyer down is a jerk, and I note nobody is commenting about how they love working with attorneys who are like Freedman. I think most of the pro-Baldoners left on this thread are not attorneys and don’t really know what they’re talking about tbh.

And you’d be wrong. I am, and I can tell there is at least one other pro Baldoni lawyer poster on just this page. However, I do appreciate that the two most prolific Lively posters have confirmed what we have long known, neither are litigators.

I litigate. So let me know what you think of those ROG responses. Totally normal, eh?

This is again missing the forest for the trees. Suppose they are inadequate? He’ll lose a motion to compel, write some bullshit vague but somewhat more detailed response and it won’t matter an iota for the outcome of this case. But if you want to waste your time on this, go ahead.

All of this matters in terms of building credibility with the judge. Judge Lyman denied their request for an extension, and these ROG responses are what they filed, late.

It all matters. And what facts Freedman has and shares (or can’t share) now may matter especially in deciding whether to grant that MTD with or without prejudice.

It all matters. Always.

[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:I really don't get the personal animus shown here towards Freedman. Gottlieb has been far more nasty in his pleadings, and refusing to agree to a first request for an extension is not normal practice. Being a bit of a blowhard is pretty much a character trait for plaintiff attorneys and will be something the judge sees day in and day out. It certainly isn't something that will "turn him against" Freedman as one poster hopes.

I wouldn't say I have "personal" animus towards Freedman, but as a lawyer I've known many like him and it's one of the reasons I left litigation. It is not a style or personality type I enjoy, so I'm predisposed to dislike him. Also early in following this case, I read this profile of him (from last summer), and there's a lot of details in there that give me the ick:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/entertainment-lawyer-bryan-freedman-hollywood-dark-knight-1235919993/

I do think he's an effective lawyer for the kind of cases he takes on and I don't think he's dumb. But I cannot stand his approach to the media and I find his personality grating.

I also happened to have a lot of respect for Gottlieb based on some of his prior pro bono work (for instance defending GA poll workers against attacks from Giuliani after the 2020 election) and his style is preferable to me -- more restrained and professional IMO.

I just don't enjoy bombastic lawyers unless they are funny. Freedman is a specific kind of litigator, a media-savvy pitbull. I've known others like him. It is effective but I don't enjoy it. That's all.

DP, who listened to the PO hearing, who doesn’t like Freedman and makes somewhat hostile posts about him here. I have worked with (and against) other attorneys who are openly hostile to opposing counsel from the starting point (rather than having such a take on opposing counsel be earned over time due to dirty tricks or whatever), and it’s never good. These have always been the worst attorneys to deal with in my career and have been uniformly terrible people. Their egos cannot be appeased and even when they are on your side, they are impossible to work with.

The other thing I’ve heard about Freedman specifically is that he files things prematurely before he has the facts to back them up, expecting to gain those facts through discovery. That’s not the way complaints are supposed to work — you’re supposed to have the basics to support your claim in hand before filing. You shouldn’t be signing court filings that are guesses. But he doesn’t see a problem with that.

PP here and one of my issues with Freedman is that he has a history of doing things that I think are unethical with respect to the media. For instance in that article I linked to, they mention a case he handled against Bravo where he went on TMZ and waived around a document with the title "Slave Contract," implying that this was one of the contracts with Bravo at issue in his case. Later it turned out that was a prop contract that had nothing to do with the case. When I practiced, I encountered lawyers like this who have very loose relationships with truth and ethics and it's just so far from who I am as a person and a lawyer, it really drove me crazy. There is a whole school of thought in litigation that it's okay to pushed the boundaries of professional or personal ethics in order to zealously advocate for your client, he's far from alone in this. I dislike it and it wore me down over time and eventually I just decided I didn't want to spend so much of my professional life engaged in conflict with people who had such a different approach to me.

Lawyers disagree on this. I have old colleagues I like and respect who are not bothered by this stuff. Everyone is different. But for me, Freedman crosses a line. I feel similarly about his "Exhibit A" (which is just clearly a violation of procedural rules and is almost certainly going to be stricken at some point) and about some of the "leaks" or "receipts" Freedman has produced that I think are intentionally misleading.

You don’t seem cut out for litigation and that is reflected in your analysis.

Not being "cut out for" the kind of litigation where people lie about "slave contracts" to the press in order to undercut the opposition is a good thing.

It's like saying someone isn't "cut out for" dirty political campaigns. It means you're too decent to pull this crap.

Agree. The PP putting this lawyer down is a jerk, and I note nobody is commenting about how they love working with attorneys who are like Freedman. I think most of the pro-Baldoners left on this thread are not attorneys and don’t really know what they’re talking about tbh.

And you’d be wrong. I am, and I can tell there is at least one other pro Baldoni lawyer poster on just this page. However, I do appreciate that the two most prolific Lively posters have confirmed what we have long known, neither are litigators.

I litigate. So let me know what you think of those ROG responses. Totally normal, eh?

This is again missing the forest for the trees. Suppose they are inadequate? He’ll lose a motion to compel, write some bullshit vague but somewhat more detailed response and it won’t matter an iota for the outcome of this case. But if you want to waste your time on this, go ahead.

All of this matters in terms of building credibility with the judge. Judge Lyman denied their request for an extension, and these ROG responses are what they filed, late.

It all matters. And what facts Freedman has and shares (or can’t share) now may matter especially in deciding whether to grant that MTD with or without prejudice.

It all matters. Always.

It really doesn’t. Lively also had an extension denied, and that one was consented to by Freedman.

[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:I really don't get the personal animus shown here towards Freedman. Gottlieb has been far more nasty in his pleadings, and refusing to agree to a first request for an extension is not normal practice. Being a bit of a blowhard is pretty much a character trait for plaintiff attorneys and will be something the judge sees day in and day out. It certainly isn't something that will "turn him against" Freedman as one poster hopes.

I wouldn't say I have "personal" animus towards Freedman, but as a lawyer I've known many like him and it's one of the reasons I left litigation. It is not a style or personality type I enjoy, so I'm predisposed to dislike him. Also early in following this case, I read this profile of him (from last summer), and there's a lot of details in there that give me the ick:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/entertainment-lawyer-bryan-freedman-hollywood-dark-knight-1235919993/

I do think he's an effective lawyer for the kind of cases he takes on and I don't think he's dumb. But I cannot stand his approach to the media and I find his personality grating.

I also happened to have a lot of respect for Gottlieb based on some of his prior pro bono work (for instance defending GA poll workers against attacks from Giuliani after the 2020 election) and his style is preferable to me -- more restrained and professional IMO.

I just don't enjoy bombastic lawyers unless they are funny. Freedman is a specific kind of litigator, a media-savvy pitbull. I've known others like him. It is effective but I don't enjoy it. That's all.

DP, who listened to the PO hearing, who doesn’t like Freedman and makes somewhat hostile posts about him here. I have worked with (and against) other attorneys who are openly hostile to opposing counsel from the starting point (rather than having such a take on opposing counsel be earned over time due to dirty tricks or whatever), and it’s never good. These have always been the worst attorneys to deal with in my career and have been uniformly terrible people. Their egos cannot be appeased and even when they are on your side, they are impossible to work with.

The other thing I’ve heard about Freedman specifically is that he files things prematurely before he has the facts to back them up, expecting to gain those facts through discovery. That’s not the way complaints are supposed to work — you’re supposed to have the basics to support your claim in hand before filing. You shouldn’t be signing court filings that are guesses. But he doesn’t see a problem with that.

PP here and one of my issues with Freedman is that he has a history of doing things that I think are unethical with respect to the media. For instance in that article I linked to, they mention a case he handled against Bravo where he went on TMZ and waived around a document with the title "Slave Contract," implying that this was one of the contracts with Bravo at issue in his case. Later it turned out that was a prop contract that had nothing to do with the case. When I practiced, I encountered lawyers like this who have very loose relationships with truth and ethics and it's just so far from who I am as a person and a lawyer, it really drove me crazy. There is a whole school of thought in litigation that it's okay to pushed the boundaries of professional or personal ethics in order to zealously advocate for your client, he's far from alone in this. I dislike it and it wore me down over time and eventually I just decided I didn't want to spend so much of my professional life engaged in conflict with people who had such a different approach to me.

Lawyers disagree on this. I have old colleagues I like and respect who are not bothered by this stuff. Everyone is different. But for me, Freedman crosses a line. I feel similarly about his "Exhibit A" (which is just clearly a violation of procedural rules and is almost certainly going to be stricken at some point) and about some of the "leaks" or "receipts" Freedman has produced that I think are intentionally misleading.

You don’t seem cut out for litigation and that is reflected in your analysis.

Not being "cut out for" the kind of litigation where people lie about "slave contracts" to the press in order to undercut the opposition is a good thing.

It's like saying someone isn't "cut out for" dirty political campaigns. It means you're too decent to pull this crap.

Agree. The PP putting this lawyer down is a jerk, and I note nobody is commenting about how they love working with attorneys who are like Freedman. I think most of the pro-Baldoners left on this thread are not attorneys and don’t really know what they’re talking about tbh.

And you’d be wrong. I am, and I can tell there is at least one other pro Baldoni lawyer poster on just this page. However, I do appreciate that the two most prolific Lively posters have confirmed what we have long known, neither are litigators.

I litigate. So let me know what you think of those ROG responses. Totally normal, eh?

This is again missing the forest for the trees. Suppose they are inadequate? He’ll lose a motion to compel, write some bullshit vague but somewhat more detailed response and it won’t matter an iota for the outcome of this case. But if you want to waste your time on this, go ahead.

All of this matters in terms of building credibility with the judge. Judge Lyman denied their request for an extension, and these ROG responses are what they filed, late.

It all matters. And what facts Freedman has and shares (or can’t share) now may matter especially in deciding whether to grant that MTD with or without prejudice.

It all matters. Always.

Not sure what you are talking about, judge cannot go beyond the complaint in deciding a motion to dismiss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don't get the personal animus shown here towards Freedman. Gottlieb has been far more nasty in his pleadings, and refusing to agree to a first request for an extension is not normal practice. Being a bit of a blowhard is pretty much a character trait for plaintiff attorneys and will be something the judge sees day in and day out. It certainly isn't something that will "turn him against" Freedman as one poster hopes.

I wouldn't say I have "personal" animus towards Freedman, but as a lawyer I've known many like him and it's one of the reasons I left litigation. It is not a style or personality type I enjoy, so I'm predisposed to dislike him. Also early in following this case, I read this profile of him (from last summer), and there's a lot of details in there that give me the ick:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/entertainment-lawyer-bryan-freedman-hollywood-dark-knight-1235919993/

I do think he's an effective lawyer for the kind of cases he takes on and I don't think he's dumb. But I cannot stand his approach to the media and I find his personality grating.

I also happened to have a lot of respect for Gottlieb based on some of his prior pro bono work (for instance defending GA poll workers against attacks from Giuliani after the 2020 election) and his style is preferable to me -- more restrained and professional IMO.

I just don't enjoy bombastic lawyers unless they are funny. Freedman is a specific kind of litigator, a media-savvy pitbull. I've known others like him. It is effective but I don't enjoy it. That's all.

DP, who listened to the PO hearing, who doesn’t like Freedman and makes somewhat hostile posts about him here. I have worked with (and against) other attorneys who are openly hostile to opposing counsel from the starting point (rather than having such a take on opposing counsel be earned over time due to dirty tricks or whatever), and it’s never good. These have always been the worst attorneys to deal with in my career and have been uniformly terrible people. Their egos cannot be appeased and even when they are on your side, they are impossible to work with.

The other thing I’ve heard about Freedman specifically is that he files things prematurely before he has the facts to back them up, expecting to gain those facts through discovery. That’s not the way complaints are supposed to work — you’re supposed to have the basics to support your claim in hand before filing. You shouldn’t be signing court filings that are guesses. But he doesn’t see a problem with that.

PP here and one of my issues with Freedman is that he has a history of doing things that I think are unethical with respect to the media. For instance in that article I linked to, they mention a case he handled against Bravo where he went on TMZ and waived around a document with the title "Slave Contract," implying that this was one of the contracts with Bravo at issue in his case. Later it turned out that was a prop contract that had nothing to do with the case. When I practiced, I encountered lawyers like this who have very loose relationships with truth and ethics and it's just so far from who I am as a person and a lawyer, it really drove me crazy. There is a whole school of thought in litigation that it's okay to pushed the boundaries of professional or personal ethics in order to zealously advocate for your client, he's far from alone in this. I dislike it and it wore me down over time and eventually I just decided I didn't want to spend so much of my professional life engaged in conflict with people who had such a different approach to me.

Lawyers disagree on this. I have old colleagues I like and respect who are not bothered by this stuff. Everyone is different. But for me, Freedman crosses a line. I feel similarly about his "Exhibit A" (which is just clearly a violation of procedural rules and is almost certainly going to be stricken at some point) and about some of the "leaks" or "receipts" Freedman has produced that I think are intentionally misleading.

You don’t seem cut out for litigation and that is reflected in your analysis.

Not being "cut out for" the kind of litigation where people lie about "slave contracts" to the press in order to undercut the opposition is a good thing.

It's like saying someone isn't "cut out for" dirty political campaigns. It means you're too decent to pull this crap.

Nope, I hear it means you get continually distracted by things that don’t matter. Filing a sham law suit is really problematic, having a big personality is not. Getting the procedure you want on for a protective order matters less than getting a more narrow definition of AEO than you wanted. Not getting an extension matters far less than getting a subpoena quashed.

Those subpoenas were just redrafted and reissued, nbd. Meanwhile, how is getting zero discovery from the NYT (the party with the deepest pockets in this case) working out for the lawyer who files sh!t expecting to find all the facts he needs to support it through the process of discovery?

Everyone knows that the NYTimes lawsuit was a “Hail Mary.” Personally, I think the Court shouldn't be quick to dismiss because of the Times reliance on their independent review of the texts, the sham litigation, etc . . But Liman seems inclined to rely on the public use doctrine.

In any case, the purpose of this litigation was primarily PR and no question it was a home run in providing a quick rebuttal to The NY Times hit piece.

What??? 300 pages ago you all were reveling at the clear prospect of the NYT going down, and now it’s a Hail Mary? You guys sure do switch your stories on a dime, just like Freedman did when that Slave Contract turned out to relate to an entirely different case. Okay, Jan.

[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:I really don't get the personal animus shown here towards Freedman. Gottlieb has been far more nasty in his pleadings, and refusing to agree to a first request for an extension is not normal practice. Being a bit of a blowhard is pretty much a character trait for plaintiff attorneys and will be something the judge sees day in and day out. It certainly isn't something that will "turn him against" Freedman as one poster hopes.

I wouldn't say I have "personal" animus towards Freedman, but as a lawyer I've known many like him and it's one of the reasons I left litigation. It is not a style or personality type I enjoy, so I'm predisposed to dislike him. Also early in following this case, I read this profile of him (from last summer), and there's a lot of details in there that give me the ick:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/entertainment-lawyer-bryan-freedman-hollywood-dark-knight-1235919993/

I do think he's an effective lawyer for the kind of cases he takes on and I don't think he's dumb. But I cannot stand his approach to the media and I find his personality grating.

I also happened to have a lot of respect for Gottlieb based on some of his prior pro bono work (for instance defending GA poll workers against attacks from Giuliani after the 2020 election) and his style is preferable to me -- more restrained and professional IMO.

I just don't enjoy bombastic lawyers unless they are funny. Freedman is a specific kind of litigator, a media-savvy pitbull. I've known others like him. It is effective but I don't enjoy it. That's all.

DP, who listened to the PO hearing, who doesn’t like Freedman and makes somewhat hostile posts about him here. I have worked with (and against) other attorneys who are openly hostile to opposing counsel from the starting point (rather than having such a take on opposing counsel be earned over time due to dirty tricks or whatever), and it’s never good. These have always been the worst attorneys to deal with in my career and have been uniformly terrible people. Their egos cannot be appeased and even when they are on your side, they are impossible to work with.

The other thing I’ve heard about Freedman specifically is that he files things prematurely before he has the facts to back them up, expecting to gain those facts through discovery. That’s not the way complaints are supposed to work — you’re supposed to have the basics to support your claim in hand before filing. You shouldn’t be signing court filings that are guesses. But he doesn’t see a problem with that.

PP here and one of my issues with Freedman is that he has a history of doing things that I think are unethical with respect to the media. For instance in that article I linked to, they mention a case he handled against Bravo where he went on TMZ and waived around a document with the title "Slave Contract," implying that this was one of the contracts with Bravo at issue in his case. Later it turned out that was a prop contract that had nothing to do with the case. When I practiced, I encountered lawyers like this who have very loose relationships with truth and ethics and it's just so far from who I am as a person and a lawyer, it really drove me crazy. There is a whole school of thought in litigation that it's okay to pushed the boundaries of professional or personal ethics in order to zealously advocate for your client, he's far from alone in this. I dislike it and it wore me down over time and eventually I just decided I didn't want to spend so much of my professional life engaged in conflict with people who had such a different approach to me.

Lawyers disagree on this. I have old colleagues I like and respect who are not bothered by this stuff. Everyone is different. But for me, Freedman crosses a line. I feel similarly about his "Exhibit A" (which is just clearly a violation of procedural rules and is almost certainly going to be stricken at some point) and about some of the "leaks" or "receipts" Freedman has produced that I think are intentionally misleading.

You don’t seem cut out for litigation and that is reflected in your analysis.

Not being "cut out for" the kind of litigation where people lie about "slave contracts" to the press in order to undercut the opposition is a good thing.

It's like saying someone isn't "cut out for" dirty political campaigns. It means you're too decent to pull this crap.

Agree. The PP putting this lawyer down is a jerk, and I note nobody is commenting about how they love working with attorneys who are like Freedman. I think most of the pro-Baldoners left on this thread are not attorneys and don’t really know what they’re talking about tbh.

And you’d be wrong. I am, and I can tell there is at least one other pro Baldoni lawyer poster on just this page. However, I do appreciate that the two most prolific Lively posters have confirmed what we have long known, neither are litigators.

I litigate. So let me know what you think of those ROG responses. Totally normal, eh?

You already admitted you didn’t. But please continue for another 50 pages so we can all tune you out again.

Nah, I litigate. I don’t always call myself “a litigator” because for the kinds of clients we handle, I am often not the one standing up in court at this stage of my career. But I respond to interrogatories, discovery, I write briefs, I prep for and take depositions, I work with experts. and I have stood up in court and made arguments for sure. Let me know what you do, since you don’t give any information on that.

I spent 15 years in litigation at two T10 law firms that actual take cases to court, worked as a litigator in federal government and am currently an AAG.

If you’re an assistant attorney general in this administration, I guess I can understand why you’re always so angry. My (sincere) condolences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don't get the personal animus shown here towards Freedman. Gottlieb has been far more nasty in his pleadings, and refusing to agree to a first request for an extension is not normal practice. Being a bit of a blowhard is pretty much a character trait for plaintiff attorneys and will be something the judge sees day in and day out. It certainly isn't something that will "turn him against" Freedman as one poster hopes.

I wouldn't say I have "personal" animus towards Freedman, but as a lawyer I've known many like him and it's one of the reasons I left litigation. It is not a style or personality type I enjoy, so I'm predisposed to dislike him. Also early in following this case, I read this profile of him (from last summer), and there's a lot of details in there that give me the ick:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/entertainment-lawyer-bryan-freedman-hollywood-dark-knight-1235919993/

I do think he's an effective lawyer for the kind of cases he takes on and I don't think he's dumb. But I cannot stand his approach to the media and I find his personality grating.

I also happened to have a lot of respect for Gottlieb based on some of his prior pro bono work (for instance defending GA poll workers against attacks from Giuliani after the 2020 election) and his style is preferable to me -- more restrained and professional IMO.

I just don't enjoy bombastic lawyers unless they are funny. Freedman is a specific kind of litigator, a media-savvy pitbull. I've known others like him. It is effective but I don't enjoy it. That's all.

What sort of law do you practice if you left litigation?

I will argue that bringing this case in the first place for BL wasn’t particularly restrained or professional of Gottlieb. It’s a crap case and he hasn’t done right by his client. But he’s certainly making a boatload off of this.

It’s nice he does pro bono work and all, but that’s par for the course at big firms, they’re expected to. And he obviously chose something that would bring good PR to the firm. I don’t think his motivations were as charitable as you assume.

I think the two legal teams have very different styles. Gottlieb is very Washington DC/traditional and Freedman is Hollywood through and through. He’s witty and plays the PR game well.

I have no preference based on personality, but I have generally found Blake’s team to be more despicable. Supboenagate, while not Gottlieb’s firm but another on Blake’s team, was one of the most disgusting things I’ve ever seen. We should all be upset that our rights could be so easily tossed aside. I’d rather a lawyer that’s loud and bombastic than one who engages in underhanded and shady tactics.

What law firm handled that?

Manatt

[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:I really don't get the personal animus shown here towards Freedman. Gottlieb has been far more nasty in his pleadings, and refusing to agree to a first request for an extension is not normal practice. Being a bit of a blowhard is pretty much a character trait for plaintiff attorneys and will be something the judge sees day in and day out. It certainly isn't something that will "turn him against" Freedman as one poster hopes.

I wouldn't say I have "personal" animus towards Freedman, but as a lawyer I've known many like him and it's one of the reasons I left litigation. It is not a style or personality type I enjoy, so I'm predisposed to dislike him. Also early in following this case, I read this profile of him (from last summer), and there's a lot of details in there that give me the ick:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/entertainment-lawyer-bryan-freedman-hollywood-dark-knight-1235919993/

I do think he's an effective lawyer for the kind of cases he takes on and I don't think he's dumb. But I cannot stand his approach to the media and I find his personality grating.

I also happened to have a lot of respect for Gottlieb based on some of his prior pro bono work (for instance defending GA poll workers against attacks from Giuliani after the 2020 election) and his style is preferable to me -- more restrained and professional IMO.

I just don't enjoy bombastic lawyers unless they are funny. Freedman is a specific kind of litigator, a media-savvy pitbull. I've known others like him. It is effective but I don't enjoy it. That's all.

DP, who listened to the PO hearing, who doesn’t like Freedman and makes somewhat hostile posts about him here. I have worked with (and against) other attorneys who are openly hostile to opposing counsel from the starting point (rather than having such a take on opposing counsel be earned over time due to dirty tricks or whatever), and it’s never good. These have always been the worst attorneys to deal with in my career and have been uniformly terrible people. Their egos cannot be appeased and even when they are on your side, they are impossible to work with.

The other thing I’ve heard about Freedman specifically is that he files things prematurely before he has the facts to back them up, expecting to gain those facts through discovery. That’s not the way complaints are supposed to work — you’re supposed to have the basics to support your claim in hand before filing. You shouldn’t be signing court filings that are guesses. But he doesn’t see a problem with that.

PP here and one of my issues with Freedman is that he has a history of doing things that I think are unethical with respect to the media. For instance in that article I linked to, they mention a case he handled against Bravo where he went on TMZ and waived around a document with the title "Slave Contract," implying that this was one of the contracts with Bravo at issue in his case. Later it turned out that was a prop contract that had nothing to do with the case. When I practiced, I encountered lawyers like this who have very loose relationships with truth and ethics and it's just so far from who I am as a person and a lawyer, it really drove me crazy. There is a whole school of thought in litigation that it's okay to pushed the boundaries of professional or personal ethics in order to zealously advocate for your client, he's far from alone in this. I dislike it and it wore me down over time and eventually I just decided I didn't want to spend so much of my professional life engaged in conflict with people who had such a different approach to me.

Lawyers disagree on this. I have old colleagues I like and respect who are not bothered by this stuff. Everyone is different. But for me, Freedman crosses a line. I feel similarly about his "Exhibit A" (which is just clearly a violation of procedural rules and is almost certainly going to be stricken at some point) and about some of the "leaks" or "receipts" Freedman has produced that I think are intentionally misleading.

You don’t seem cut out for litigation and that is reflected in your analysis.

Not being "cut out for" the kind of litigation where people lie about "slave contracts" to the press in order to undercut the opposition is a good thing.

It's like saying someone isn't "cut out for" dirty political campaigns. It means you're too decent to pull this crap.

Agree. The PP putting this lawyer down is a jerk, and I note nobody is commenting about how they love working with attorneys who are like Freedman. I think most of the pro-Baldoners left on this thread are not attorneys and don’t really know what they’re talking about tbh.

And you’d be wrong. I am, and I can tell there is at least one other pro Baldoni lawyer poster on just this page. However, I do appreciate that the two most prolific Lively posters have confirmed what we have long known, neither are litigators.

I litigate. So let me know what you think of those ROG responses. Totally normal, eh?

This is again missing the forest for the trees. Suppose they are inadequate? He’ll lose a motion to compel, write some bullshit vague but somewhat more detailed response and it won’t matter an iota for the outcome of this case. But if you want to waste your time on this, go ahead.

All of this matters in terms of building credibility with the judge. Judge Lyman denied their request for an extension, and these ROG responses are what they filed, late.

It all matters. And what facts Freedman has and shares (or can’t share) now may matter especially in deciding whether to grant that MTD with or without prejudice.

It all matters. Always.

Not sure what you are talking about, judge cannot go beyond the complaint in deciding a motion to dismiss.

You’re not allowed to sue people based on vibes, and then file ROG responses like these when the people you sue ask wtf you are suing them for.