The implications of the Blake Lively-Justin Baldoni settlement

The controversy between Hollywood stars Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni has now been settled out of court, with no financial payout. This settlement structure is particularly interesting in that it does not involve any payment (although it does leave the door open for Lively to seek legal fees for Baldoni’s countersuit that Lively’s
attorneys labeled as “baseless”). It is also reminiscent of the recent high-profile Depp v. Heard case, in which Johnny Depp was not as concerned with a payout as he was with righting the wrongs he contended were committed against him.

Understanding the settlement

Many people wonder why someone would want a settlement at all, especially in a case like sexual harassment. For one, a settlement is often seen by a victim as restitution for the wrongs they have faced.

Money is often used to compensate them for any damages and emotional distress they allege they have faced. While the damages may not be tangible in these cases, potential examples include lost wages if someone was unfairly terminated or lost job opportunities due to ?sexual harassment, or costs for mental health treatment if they needed to seek professional help. In the case of Lively and Baldoni, the settlement represents an end to the tense and public legal drama that both parties have been embroiled in for nearly two years.

However, one of the biggest misconceptions about settlements is that they are an admission of guilt. People often think of settlements as if they were plea bargains — taking a lesser punishment on criminal charges in exchange for a guilty plea or nolo contendere — but settlements occur in civil court.

It is important to note that a settlement in a civil case is not an admission of liability. The party denies wrongdoing, but still pays to make the case go away, avoiding the headache that comes ?with going to trial.

One of the biggest components of a settlement for a charge like sexual harassment is emotional distress. Like pain and suffering in a personal injury case, it can be difficult to quantify the damages caused by anxiety, depression or other loss of enjoyment of life. However, by establishing that the plaintiff has suffered this emotional distress through evidence like medical records or testimony from mental health professionals, a settlement might include thousands of dollars or more for emotional distress.

The Lively case is interesting because it also exhibits an example of reputational harm against the plaintiff. When Lively initially accused Baldoni of harassment, Baldoni responded with a countersuit for defamation and extortion, which was dismissed. A big part of the settlement that Lively’s team sought was in relation to the countersuit, its associated legal fees and the reputational damage it caused to Lively.

Why settle a civil case?

The biggest reason defendants settle a civil case is the financial risk of going to court. And this isn’t just to say that they could lose more money if their case goes to court and they are ruled against, although that is certainly part of it. The cost of taking a case to court, from attorneys’ fees to court fees, can be quite high, and defendants often spend less on a settlement than they would pay to take the case to court — even if they win.

The other risk that parties face if they go to trial is a hit to their reputation. If someone is found civilly liable for the actions they were accused of — particularly if they are something sensitive like sexual harassment allegations, as in the Baldoni case — it could have serious implications on their reputation. Of course, with high-profile cases like this, many members of the public already have their preconceived notions, and those may take a long time to go away, if they ever go away at all. But the defendant is no longer branded with the civil charges levied against them by the plaintiff, and there are usually protections in place, such as a non-disclosure agreement, to prevent the plaintiff from pursuing any further reputational harm.

Another aspect of a settlement that people might not consider is the reputational harm that simply having a trial can be damaging to a person’s reputation in and of itself. Like the Depp v. Heard trial before it, the “Blake-Baldoni” case, as it has been called by the media, has resulted in the public’s opinions changing drastically about both parties. Frankly, neither of them would have benefited from the level of public scrutiny that taking to this trial would have brought to them, especially Lively, who seemed to be losing ground on the case.

It is worth noting that media attention in a high-profile case like this can significantly influence legal strategy. When the parties in a case are well-known public figures like Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni, it is difficult, if not impossible, to find a jury that does not have some sort of preconceived notions about the case. This innate bias can have serious consequences for a case’s outcome and is something a defense attorney should be particularly cognizant of. If they think public opinion is stacked against them, they may opt to settle rather than risk going to court and having it sway a verdict.

Although these high-profile cases receive extensive media attention, the truth is that, otherwise, many of these cases play out very similarly for everyday individuals facing challenges like sexual harassment or defamation. The same discussions about evidence, damages, financial risk, and reputation management are happening behind closed doors, no matter whether the parties involved are celebrities, major corporations, or average individuals.

If members of the public are to take away one thing from cases like this, it should be that it is important to have a skilled and experienced lawyer on your side. If your goal is to get a settlement that compensates you fairly for the suffering you have experienced, it is best to have an attorney in your corner with a reputation for winning big in court. When your lawyer’s track record speaks for itself, the defense may be more willing and generous with its settlement offers.

The truth is that, in many ways, the Lively
and Baldoni settlement is an oddity in the legal world. It is a settlement that is less about the outcome and more about the symbolic representation of what it means and the closure it provides to both parties. In that regard, it is an example of how, by reaching a settlement, sometimes both sides can “win.”

Jim Williams has been the lead partner at Richmond-based personal injury law firm Burnett & Williams since 2006. A graduate of George Mason University School of Law, he previously worked as litigation counsel for Progressive Insurance and also practiced at Gentry, Locke, Rakes and Moore, and
Morris & Morris.