Nick McDonnell Writes in The Legal Diary about Blake Lively’s $8m costs claim
Nick McDonnell writes in The Legal Diary about Blake Lively’s claim for more than $8m in legal fees and expenses, her award of just over $400,000, and the approach an English court might have taken.
Nick considers whether an English court would have imposed an equally dramatic reduction and precisely what costs Lively was entitled to recover. He notes that while the $8m to $400,000 reduction makes for a striking headline, it risks conflating two key questions: which costs were recoverable in principle, and whether those costs were reasonable and proportionate.
Nick’s article was published in The Legal Diary on 25 September 2026 and can be found here.
Blake Lively’s $8m costs claim: what would an English court have done?
Blake Lively sought more than $8 million in legal fees and expenses arising from her litigation with Justin Baldoni, but was ultimately awarded just over $400,000.
Would an English court have imposed an equally dramatic reduction? Possibly. But the starting point is not whether $8 million was too much. It is what costs Lively was entitled to recover.
The costs award arose from proceedings brought by Baldoni and the Wayfarer parties against Lively, Ryan Reynolds and others, including a defamation claim. Following dismissal of that claim, the court granted Lively an entitlement to reasonable legal fees and costs under California Civil Code §47.1 in respect of successfully defending herself against it. It was not a general order reimbursing her for the costs of the litigation as a whole.
That distinction would be familiar to an English costs judge. The first question is what the costs order entitles the receiving party to recover.
The complication was that the actions overlapped. Work undertaken in Lively’s own action could also be relevant to defending the defamation claim. English courts face the same difficulty where recoverable and non-recoverable work is intertwined. The High Court recently revisited the issue in LM1 Ltd v Seacroft Film Investments Ltd [2026] EWHC 2212 (Ch), applying principles concerning the attribution of costs between overlapping claims and counterclaims.
The hourly rates would attract attention. Willkie charged rates of up to $2,795 (approximately £2,090) per hour for partners and $1,573 (approximately £1,175) for associates. Yet Judge Liman expressly found that “Counsel’s rates were not unreasonable”, given the complexity and reputational risks.
His concern was the hours claimed. Lively’s claim involved 82 timekeepers across two firms, alongside vague billing entries, administrative work charged at lawyer rates and work not adequately connected to the recoverable defamation defence.
An English costs judge would recognise those issues. The size and seniority of the legal team, hours claimed, duplication and nature of the work undertaken would all be scrutinised when assessing reasonableness.
Proportionality would also provide a further control, but that is not simply about the money. Complexity, importance and wider non-monetary factors can also be relevant. The exceptional reputational stakes could therefore justify expenditure that might appear extraordinary in a more conventional case.
The $8 million to $400,000 reduction does make for a striking headline, but risks conflating two questions: which costs were recoverable in principle, and whether those costs were reasonable and proportionate.
