The legal representatives of Blake Lively have expressed their discontent regarding the public relations maneuvers employed by Justin Baldoni and his attorney, Bryan Freedman.

In a communication directed to a federal judge on Tuesday evening, Lively’s legal team contended that Freedman’s actions contravene the New York Rules of Professional Conduct by improperly engaging in public discourse regarding their ongoing legal dispute.

Freedman has embarked on an extensive media campaign following Lively’s allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation against her “It Ends With Us” co-star last month. Renowned for his proficiency in navigating celebrity legal dilemmas, Freedman has vigorously defended Baldoni, disseminating an array of evidence purporting to undermine Lively’s claims.

Tensions escalated on Tuesday when Freedman publicly released a ten-minute segment of unedited footage from a pivotal slow dance scene in the film. While Lively previously asserted that Baldoni had harassed her during its filming, Freedman asserted that the footage depicted standard professional conduct.

In reaction to this release, Lively’s attorneys alleged that Freedman had selectively leaked discovery items and petitioned Judge Lewis J. Liman to convene a hearing to evaluate the propriety of counsel’s conduct.

Conversely, sources affiliated with Baldoni maintained that imposing restrictions on Freedman would be exceedingly unjust, as he is merely safeguarding his client against Lively’s purportedly defamatory “takedown campaign,” which was initiated through a detailed exposé in the New York Times.

Baldoni’s legal team is reportedly in the process of establishing a website to disseminate further information intended to counter Lively’s charges.

It is important to note that Lively’s representatives are not, at least at this juncture, explicitly seeking a comprehensive gag order to restrain Freedman from engaging with the media. The New York Rules of Professional Conduct do indeed permit attorneys to make declarative statements out of court to protect their clients from adverse publicity.

Nevertheless, Lively’s legal team intends to invoke the rule that prohibits public pronouncements likely to unduly influence potential jurors. They are also pursuing protective measures designed to prevent the dissemination of discovery materials associated with the case.

“Federal litigation must be conducted in court and in accordance with the pertinent professional standards,” Lively’s attorneys articulated in their correspondence.

Additionally, Lively’s team dispatched two cease-and-desist missives to Freedman in December, asserting that his public declarations perpetuate a retaliatory campaign against Lively in response to her initial harassment allegations.

“Lawyers must not serve as agents of publicity,” they stated definitively. “Our conduct is governed by a distinctive set of professional standards separate from those applied to publicists and crisis management professionals.”

Despite their efforts, the impact of these cease-and-desist letters appears to have been negligible.