As the legal drama between *It Ends with Us* co-stars Justin Baldoni and Blake Lively intensifies, 

Johnny Depp’s former attorney, Benjamin Chew, has warned that both actors could face significant challenges in court ahead of their trial. 

Chew, who represented Depp in his defamation case against ex-wife Amber Heard, 

weighed in on the unfolding legal feud during a recent interview with *Law & Crime: Sidebar with Jessie Weber*. 

He cautioned that the public back-and-forth between the two stars could put them both at “real risk” in court, potentially harming their chances in front of a jury.

Chew elaborated that although both actors are well-represented, the visibility of their dispute could make it difficult for either party to secure a favorable verdict. 

He noted that both Baldoni and Lively could present compelling cases supporting their positions, but the “real danger” lies in the possibility of a jury being torn. “There’s a real danger … that the jury could essentially hang or that there might be some on the jury to say directly or indirectly attacks on both of [them],” Chew explained. He also suggested that some jurors may struggle with the fact that both Lively and Baldoni are wealthy and attractive, which could lead to confusion over how to interpret the case. The situation could be further complicated by the high-profile nature of the dispute.

The case took a significant turn in December 2024 when Blake Lively filed a series of serious allegations against her co-star and film producer Jamey Heath. She accused them of sexual harassment, retaliation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence. Her complaint, which was initially filed with the California Civil Rights Department, was later moved to federal court. Baldoni, however, wasted no time in defending himself. In response, he filed a $400 million lawsuit against Lively and her husband, actor Ryan Reynolds, accusing them of civil extortion and defamation.

As the public spectacle around the case grew, Baldoni went a step further. On Saturday, he launched a website that displayed a newly amended complaint against Lively and Reynolds. The site featured links to two PDF files: one containing his formal complaint and another with a detailed 168-page “timeline of relevant events” related to the case, including new emails and text messages. This move quickly caught the attention of legal experts, with Benjamin Chew labeling it as “very aggressive.” Chew observed that while it is not unusual for such pleadings to be made public, the timing of Baldoni’s website launch was bold. “It is a novel approach, a bold approach,” he remarked, noting that such a move before a hearing could be seen as an attempt to sway public opinion.

Legal experts also weighed in on the potential implications of Baldoni’s strategy. Fox News legal editor Kerri Urbahn agreed that the website launch was “smartly” done, acknowledging that it would allow the public to hear Baldoni’s perspective directly, without media distortion. “This case is largely going to be decided by the court of public opinion,” Urbahn said. “By setting up a bare-bones website with his complaint and timeline, Baldoni allows the public to understand his side.”

However, not all experts are convinced that this strategy will work in his favor. David Fish, a litigation partner at Romano Law, cautioned that the website could backfire in court. “Judges typically disfavor pre-trial publicity that risks tainting a jury pool,” Fish explained. The federal judge overseeing the case had already warned both sides against making the legal battle a media spectacle, and Baldoni’s website could be perceived as an attempt to influence public perception rather than presenting a strong legal case. Fish pointed out that if the court views Baldoni’s strategy as an effort to sway public opinion, it could lead to restrictions on his legal team’s public statements and potentially affect procedural decisions in the case.

The ongoing feud between Baldoni and Lively has captivated the media and their respective fans, with both sides aggressively defending their positions. The case has sparked intense discussions, with legal experts watching closely as the trial approaches. As the situation unfolds, both parties may face increasing scrutiny, and the role that public opinion plays could have lasting effects on the trial’s outcome.

The case is set to go to trial in March 2026, and with the mounting legal and media pressure, it remains to be seen how the public’s perception will impact the court proceedings. Whether the actors can stay focused on the legal arguments or whether their media strategies will backfire will likely play a pivotal role in the trial’s outcome.

Follow us to see more useful information, as well as to give us more motivation to update more useful information for you.