The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters.

By Jenna Greene

May 22 (Reuters) - For lawyers, there’s a fine art to litigating in the press, of calibrating how to shape a public narrative without running afoul of ethics rules or antagonizing judges.

It can be a thin line – and it’s being tested by counsel in bitter litigation between actor-director Justin Baldoni and his erstwhile “It Ends With Us” co-star Blake Lively over allegations of sexual harassment, extortion and defamation. Both actors have strenuously denied wrongdoing.

Last week, U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman in Manhattan struck from the docket a filing signed by Baldoni’s lawyer Bryan Freedman, writing that its “sole purpose” was to “’promote public scandal’ by advancing inflammatory accusations” involving texts between Lively and Taylor Swift. In the future, Liman warned, “misuse of the Court’s docket may be met with sanctions.”

Freedman, a partner at Liner Freedman Taitelman + Cooley in Los Angeles, did not respond to requests for comment.

Willkie Farr & Gallagher partner Michael Gottlieb and Manatt, Phelps & Phillips partner Esra Hudson, who represent Lively and her husband, the actor Ryan Reynolds, declined to comment for this column.

As my Reuters colleagues have reported, the feud became public in December, when Lively accused Baldoni of sexually harassing her while filming “It Ends With Us,” a 2024 drama about intimate partner violence, and then trying to smear her reputation.

Lively filed a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department, followed by a federal lawsuit in Manhattan against Baldoni, his production company Wayfarer Studios and other defendants.

Baldoni and Wayfarer countersued for $400 million, accusing Lively, Reynolds, their publicist, The New York Times and others of orchestrating a smear campaign to extort him.

A spokesperson for the Times told me via email that the allegations against it in Baldoni and Wayfarer's lawsuit, which stem from a December 21, 2024, article, “‘We Can Bury Anyone’: Inside a Hollywood Smear Machine,” are meritless and that the story "fully and fairly captured the complaint that Blake Lively lodged against Justin Baldoni and his associates.”

Given the litigants’ fame, it’s not surprising that the case has attracted widespread interest. Both the Lively and Baldoni teams have accused the other of improperly playing to the court of public opinion, leveling claims of “litigation-via-press-statement strategy,” as Lively’s lawyers put it in a letter to the court earlier this year, or engaging in a "scorched earth media campaign," as Baldoni's lawyers countered.

Still, making extrajudicial comments isn’t necessarily out of bounds, and for some litigants they can be a calculated move, said legal PR specialist Elizabeth Lampert.

“While courts don't look kindly on attempts to use the legal system for PR purposes,” she said, “a single inflammatory line in a court filing can go viral and shape public perception long before a case reaches a courtroom, for better or worse.”

Under the American Bar Association’s Model Rule 3.6, lawyers are obliged to refrain from out-of-court public statements that are likely to have “a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding.” But as legal ethics expert Bruce Green, a professor at Fordham University Law School, points out, it’s “not a gag order.”

While judges no doubt prefer that lawyers try their cases inside the courtroom, the U.S. Supreme Court has also recognized “legitimate reasons” to advocate in the media, such as protecting a client’s reputation, Green told me.

Judges may “huff and puff” about publicity tactics, Green said, but there are “very few cases where lawyers actually get sanctioned.”

Will the Lively/Baldoni litigation be one of them?

At a hearing in February, according to court papers, Liman warned the lawyers that he would intervene if the case were to be litigated in the press in a way that would "prejudice the opportunity of the parties to a fair trial.”

In striking Freedman’s filing on May 15, Liman wrote that it “transparently invites a press uproar by suggesting that Lively and her counsel attempted to ‘extort’ a well-known celebrity.”

The judge doesn’t name names, but according to the now-stricken letter, which remains available in legal research database CourtListener and other websites, the celebrity is Taylor Swift, a friend of Lively.

In the letter and subsequent affidavit, Freedman wrote that “a source who is highly likely to have reliable information” told him that Lively’s lawyer, Gottlieb, called Swift’s lawyer, Venable partner Doug Baldridge, to request that the singer make a statement of support for his client on social media. If she refused, the source said Gottlieb intimated that Lively would release private text messages from Swift.

Freedman said he would divulge the source’s identity if ordered to do so by the court.

Tabloid stories speculating on the content of the texts followed in short order. (“Taylor Swift's 'intimate' private texts describing Travis Kelce and ex lovers: Truth about messages Blake Lively 'threatened to leak”)

Baldridge did not respond to a request for comment, but Venable last week moved to quash a subpoena in Washington, D.C., federal court by Baldoni’s company Wayfarer seeking communications between firm lawyers and Lively, Reynolds and their lawyers. Wayfarer withdrew the subpoena on May 21, Venable told the court on Thursday.

Liman in his order cautioned the media against simply repeating allegations in court documents. Such filings “may be abused to make potentially defamatory statements without the threat of liability,” Liman wrote, given the “absolute immunity" afforded to legal proceedings.

Quoting a 2019 opinion by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a defamation case involving associates of the disgraced late financier Jeffrey Epstein, the judge offered some advice. Just because a document is filed in court, that doesn't make it more credible -- and "in fact, allegations appearing in such documents might be less credible than those published elsewhere."

(Reporting by Jenna Greene)