Will BRYAN FREEDMAN win? Some claims dismissed, some survived. ANTI-SLAPP motion filed!!!

Added: 2026-05-27

[00:00:00]Brian Freriedman just won his antislap claim, but the lawsuit is far from over.

[00:00:07]Grab your emotional support lip gloss.

[00:00:09]We're getting into this one.

[00:00:19]Hello and welcome back to InFrame with Mandy. I'm Mandy Magnan and in today's video we are talking about the entire lawsuit filed against Brian Freeman for so many things and now this is coming from the Flores estate and the judge has made a ruling and Brian Freeman has come back okay asking for attorney fees. So we don't really have to go into the entire history of the lawsuit because it's all in the opinion and order. So, I thought we would just read that and then talk about the fees, the attorney fees, because I think this is a direct correlation for how much kind of Blake Lively would be awarded times like 5 million, right? Because there's so much so many more filings in that court document of it ends with us or in the court court docket, yes, of it ends with us than there is in this lawsuit. But it just goes to show and something that we've been saying this entire year is that the only people winning for Blake Lively in her lawsuit are the lawyers.

[00:01:24]Okay? They are going to make money if they win these attorney fees. And I think that's what they were pushing for this whole time is just to rack up that billable because they kept saying they have this mountain of evidence. We haven't seen a shred of evidence thus far. really all of the evidence that was ever unsealed with the great unsealing, plus all of the other Friday night dumps and everything that came out was really against Blake and Ryan. We've yet to see any evidence the other way around. You know what I'm saying? But this is just a great example of fake lawsuits and how much these attorney fees can really, really get up there. Okay. Now, years ago, somewhere I believe in 2016, and then the lawsuit was settled somewhere in 2022ish around there, there was a gentleman named Mr. Flores. Mr. Flores had joined uh like a workshop or this like film making thing with Justin Baldoni. He shared a few ideas about a film that he had called 3 feet distance. And then according to Mr. Flores, what happened is Justin Baldoni took that idea. He went and worked with some other people and he created his movie five feet apart. Flores then did sue Justin Baldonian Wayfair for copyright infringement and stolen theft property and a bunch of other stuff but it was settled no fault on anyone completely settled and it was um no monies were turned over and it was settled. Now, that was all Gucci. And then years later, as we know, Brian Freeman became Justin Baldon's lawyer after being his opposition. So, now he became his lawyer. And some media reporters had questions about him, like, "How can you represent Justin Baldon when you were against Justin Baldoni a few years ago?"

[00:03:14]And Brian Freeman made a statement, I believe, just one time on that question.

[00:03:21]However, the estate of Flores then sued Brian Freeman for those statements. And now what they sued for was stuff that wasn't even able to sue for. And you'll see that. And that's why Brian Freeman is now counter suing for his attorney fees for anti-SLAP statute because the entire lawsuit or those parts of the lawsuit, I should say, that part of the lawsuit uh was meritless. And this is the opinion and order from the judge.

[00:03:52]So, we're just going to skip everyone's little letters and motions. And there was an opinion and order from the judge in March. And now they're kind of going back and forth over attorney fees. And I think that this person handling the estate, who is Clement Suri, I don't know about your lawyer, girl. Or I don't know about your lawyer. Okay. I don't know about your lawyer because Yeah. Not good. It's not a good situation. In this lawsuit, you will have Clement Suri who is the plaintiff and then the defendant when they refer to the defendant is Brian Freeman with his law firm Liner Freeman Tailment and Kulie LLP. Defendant special motion to strike is granted in part. So the plaintiff, the uh Clement Suri for the estate of Flores filed this lawsuit and then the defendants Brian Freeman and his law firm filed motions to completely strike it and dismiss the entire thing.

[00:04:54]It's granted in part, denied in part.

[00:04:56]The causes of action for invasion of privacy and defamation are stricken in their entirety under California anti-SLAP law. However, the three other causes of action for breach of contract, legal malpractice, and breach of fiduciary duty may proceed in their entirety. So, he did win a couple of the things, but the biggest ones, the biggest claims against him, like legal malpractice, bro, that gets to move forward if they choose to continue to move forward because when you see the bill, no thank you, no thank you. The action brought by the estate of Travis Michael Flores against Flores's former lawyer, Brian Freeman, in 2021 and 2022. So, that's when it was. I was pretty correct on that date, 2022ish, I think I said it. Uh, Freeman represented Flores, who is now sadly deceased, in an idea submission and copyright case against Justin Baldon, a well-known director. In that case, Flores claimed he had originated the idea for a film five feet apart, created and directed by Baldoni. That case settled as a walk away without payment by either side. Now, Freeman, Flores's former lawyer, represents Justin Baldoni in a very famous, very famous litigation involving Baldoni and the actress Blake Lively. The Lively Baldon litigation has garnered worldwide attention. Freeman was asked by the press about the older lawsuit in which he represented a client adverse to Baldoni. So they asked him like, "How can you now be repping this dude when you were against him just like 3 years ago?" Freeman responded by saying, "In the copyright infringement case, I learned what great people Justin and Wayfair Baldon's company were. I learned that they did absolutely nothing wrong and that there was no liability on their part whatsoever. As a result, the case was resolved without any liability on Justin or Wayfair or any other defendant's part. This only further confirmed to me that Justin and Wayfair are exceedingly honorable and highly ethical. Well, Brian Freeman, I kind of agree. I kind of agree after reading all of their text messages and emails and really getting like inside their head.

[00:07:26]You know, it is what it is in my opinion. Of course, this is my opinion.

[00:07:30]and everyone can have their own.

[00:07:32]According to the complaint and evidence submitted by Flores's estate, this media statement and similar statements by Freriedman to the press brought attention to the Flores's earlier lawsuit, damaging the reputation of the late Flores and causing the estate itself to incur legal and other fees to deal with the press attention. The estate brought the instant action. Now, I think that's quite interesting because I remember when he had made those statements and and all of that. And I don't remember like so much stuff like blowing up about this lawsuit or being uncovered again or people paying too much mind to it because there was so much happening with it ends with us. I mean, that lawsuit kept us on our toes every day. Every day. Every day. You know what I'm saying? So, I I I just like really was it that much media attention? I don't know. The internet is kind of a wild place, so maybe it was.

[00:08:31]But I feel like even for me, who was following the It Ends With Us lawsuit and really every day trying to make sure there was justice for the Wayfair defendants, including Jennifer Ael.

[00:08:43]Yeah, girl. Um like, no, I don't think anyone paid much mind to this, like gave it, you know, that time of day. However, they're saying that yeah, they had to, you know, incur legal and other fees to deal with the press attention. So, I guess I guess it did. I guess it did.

[00:09:04]The estate brought the instant action.

[00:09:07]The complaint alleges causes of action for breach of contract, legal malpractice, breach of fidiciary duty, invasion of privacy, and defamation. The complaint alleges three general basis for Freedom's liability across five causes of action. First, the estate alleges that Brian Freriedman committed malpractice, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty to the original representation when Flores was Freiedman's existing client. Okay. So, it's not only the statements that he made after, but they also brought a bunch of claims saying that he was he didn't do him justice when he was his actual lawyer years back. Okay. For example, the estate alleges that Freriedman advised Flores to settle his allegedly meritorious case for a walk away. Second, the estate claims that the media statement and similar statements to the press constituted a breach of Freriedman's duties as an attorney to Flores as a former client. Most significantly, the estate alleges that the media statement violated Freriedman's duties to his former clients because it shared confidences about the representation with the press.

[00:10:27]Third, the estate claims that Freriedman committed tors going beyond its duty as an attorney, specifically that he defamed Flores and invaded his privacy by issuing the media statement and similar press statements. Freriedman now has brought an anti-slap motion for the reasons discussed below. The court concludes that the anti-slap analysis is different as to each of the three general bases for liability. So Brian Freeman was like, "Yo, yo, yo, yo, yo, I can say whatever I want to say. Like, anti-slap, you got to dismiss all this.

[00:11:04]You know what I'm saying? It's Cali."

[00:11:06]And the judge said, "We're going to go through it piece by piece, boy, because you're not out of the water yet." Okay.

[00:11:14]First, to the extent that it seeks to impose liability for Freriedman's actions when Flores was an existing client, this is garden variety legal malpractice case. We got that garden variety again. Okay. So, they're saying that whatever you're trying to say that he did when he was his lawyer years back, that's peanuts compared to what you're dealing with right now. So, that's garden variety. The anti-slap law does not apply at all. So you're bringing this over to this court and indeed it would be frivolous. The judge says it would be frivolous to argue otherwise and Freriedman conceds as much. Second to the extent the malpractice breach of contract and breach of fidiciary duty allegations are based on Freriedman's breach of duties to Flores as a former client. By issuing the media statement, the court finds that the anti-slap law applies. That imposing liability based on the media statement meets the first step of the anti-slap law. However, because the media statement on its face could reasonably be construed to violate the fidiciary and other duties of an attorney to a former client. And because the statement is not otherwise privileged, the estate has also shown that the breach of contract, breach of fidiciary duty, and legal malpractice claims based on the media statements have sufficient merit to proceed. The second step of the anti-slap law is not satisfied. Third, the claims for defamation and invasion of privacy cannot go forward at all. No bueno.

[00:13:04]they're out of here. Those claims are entirely based on the media statement and similar statements to the press.

[00:13:11]They are thus obviously subject to the anti-SLAP law in their entirety. They also certainly lack merit in their entirety since Flores is deceased. His estate cannot bring a defamation or invasion of privacy cause of action on Flores's behalf. The court further explains its reasoning below. And what is very interesting and what the judge is going to explain but rather a lot in detail but just to sum it up here is that in California the defamation and invasion of privacy the causes of action cannot go forward especially under the principles of California law because California does not permit defamation or privacy claims on behalf of deceased persons or their estates because such rights are strictly personnel and extinguish upon death. So, it's it's very interesting that his lawyers, whoever the lawyer is for this estate, would even put those claims forward having Brian Freriedman and his firm have to defend them knowing that those claims are completely frivolous because they don't even fall under the California law at all, like the principle at all. So, not sure about that. But we are going to talk about that a little bit at the end, the lawyer side of this because again, is this just a money grab or what's going on? Because how are you filing these claims and not even knowing what the California law is for them? In ruling on a defendant's special motion to strike the trial, court uses a summary judgment like procedure. We're very aware of summary judgement here and motion on the pleadings, of course.

[00:14:57]Thank you, Blake Lively. But they use a summary judgement-like procedure at an early stage of the litigation. This is a two-step process. First, the moving defendant has the burden of establishing that the lawsuit's claims are based on activity protected by the statute. So, that would be Brian Freriedman has to prove that like, hey, hey, I'm protected in what I say. At this first step, the moving defendant must demonstrate that the defendant's conduct by which plaintiff claims to have been injured falls within one of the four categories described in subdivision of the code of civil procedures. at most pertinent here. Section 425.16 subdivision E2, E3, and E4 make protected activity any written or oral statement or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a judicial body. any written or oral statements made in a public forum in connection with the issue of a public interest and any other conduct in furtherance of the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or issue of public interest. And now we all know the Blake Lively and the Justin Baldon and the Wayfairer case and the it ends with us was definitely it still is public issue.

[00:16:22]I am waiting waiting for the Vanzan text messages. Okay. Nothing yet. I will let you know. Second, for each claim that does not arise from protected activity, the plaintiff, Flores's estate, must show the claim has at least minimal merit. At the second step, the court determines whether the plaintiff has stated a legally sufficient claim and made a primaasy factual showing sufficient to sustain a favorable judgment. In making both determinations, the trial court is considered the pleadings and supporting and opposing affidavit stating the facts upon which the liability or defense is based.

[00:17:04]Factual history.

[00:17:07]The estate, the descendant whose estate brought this action, Travis Michael Flores, was a published writer born with cystic fibrosis.

[00:17:17]Flores developed a screenplay titled Three Feet Distant based on his own experience living with this condition.

[00:17:25]Florence participated in a television series entitled My Last Days in or around 2016 hosted by executive producer Justin Baldoni. During his tenure on the series, Flores allegedly allegedly okay allegedly cuz what you guys aren't going to be happy about what I said here, okay, allegedly shared his ideas for the three feet distance with Baloni. Baldoni then went on to direct Five Feet Apart, a 2019 motion picture officially inspired by the life of CF activist Claire Wineland, who also was cast on My Last Days. The estate alleges that Baldoni stole Flores's script to develop 5 feet apart. In July of 2021, Flores retained Freriedman and the other defendants to pursue a federal copyright infringement action against Baldoni for stealing the script to 3 ft distance.

[00:18:27]Freriedman allegedly filed the action without performing due diligence to investigate the strength of Flores's claim and failed to uncover key evidence supporting Flores's position. Instead, Freriedman allegedly concluded that Flores's case was meritless upon Baldon's filing of a motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12B. So, they're saying, "Okay, they filed their lawsuit. Then, Baldon and Wayfair came back and was like, "No, no, no. We're going to file to get this dismissed because it's under 12B." And they're saying that instead of Freriedman actually fighting for Flores, he suggested and then they ultimately did settle and a walk away settlement.

[00:19:13]So nobody really won. The case was kind of just dropped. Flores entered into a non-confidential settlement. Okay, so it was non-confidential. Justin keeps getting these non-confidential settlements. poker and I kind of like this cuz I can't wait for his book or his new podcast or whatever he's doing, you know, on the copyright action ending the case with no admission of liability or lack thereof and a waiver of any party's right to requ cover cover fees or costs. Okay, so they settled big time. I mean, no liability and you cannot come after me for any fees or costs. So, that must have cost them a lot of money. Okay. The copyright action was dismissed on March 9th of 2022.

[00:19:55]Flores sadly passed away just a couple years later on May 23rd of 2024. Rest in peace, Mr. Flores. In December of that year, Freriedman began representing Baldoni in his highprofile litigation against actress Blake Lively.

[00:20:14]The parties agree that the factual and legal claims asserted in the Lively and Baldoni litigation are unrelated to this action. Thank the heavens. Okay, thank the heavens that we don't have to go through a summary of that lawsuit because that would have taken hours.

[00:20:29]Okay, hours and hours and hours. Okay, so they both agree that lawsuit has nothing to do with this lawsuit. Okay, however, in January of 2025, Mr. Freeman Mhm. and he went out there and he said some stuff to the media. Okay. And that was the reference up above that one statement that he said about how he found out during that litigation that Wayfairer and Justin Baldon are actually great guys. And you know that's it. That is what it is. The estate contends that defendants Freriedman and his law firm breached their contractual, fiduciary, and professional obligations by performing insufficient work, providing poor legal counsel in advising Flores to agree to the settlement, failing to disclose a conflict of interest, and failing to maintain and return a complete client file.

[00:21:24]Siri, who is running the estate and is the plaintiff in this action, the solo plaintiff, also contends that Mr. Freriedman's public statements constitute a disclosure of confidential attorney client communications that undermined Flores's legal position, invaded his privacy, and defamed his character. The anti-slap step one. So at at the first anti-slap step, the question is whether a defendant has met the burden of showing that a plaintiff's claims arises from protected activity, which happens when the protected activity underlines or forms the basis of the claim. A plaintiff's complaint ultimately defines the contours of the claims. The complaint therefore has the primary role in identifying the claims at issue in the first anti-slap step in analysizing whether the claim arises from protected activity. The court is not bound by the labels given to a single cause of action. If a claim for relief is supported by allegations that concern both protected and unprotected activity, they must go one by one by one. Okay? Because they can't just lump them all in together. And that's what the court found here is that some of it did and some of it didn't. And the court's going to start with the arguments against Brian Freriedman against Flores when he was a then client. Okay, Flores as a then client.

[00:22:53]To begin the anti-slap analysis, the court notes that the authorities have established that the anti-slap statute does not apply to the claims of attorney malpractice. here. Much of the complaint falls squarely within the rule, barring use of the anti-SLAP law to strike ordinary malpractice claims. The complaint alleges inadequate investigation by defendants in Flores's former action and advising Flores to accept an allegedly inadequate settlement in his idea submission case.

[00:23:27]There is no basis for applying the anti-SLAP law to these allegations which provide the primary basis for the malpractice fudiciary duty and breach of contract claims. Indeed, Freriedman does not argue to the contrary. While his initial motion is somewhat unclear on this point, Freriedman's reply brief makes clear that Freriedman does not seek to strike allegations related to Freriedman's conduct while he represented Flores as a then current client. Accordingly, there can be no dispute that the malpractice, fudiciary duty, and breach of contract allegations fully survive the anti-slap motion to the extent that they are promised on Freriedman's activities while Flores was a current client. Flores as a former client. Freriedman also argues, however, that the actions he took on behalf of Baldoni when Flores was a former client are not categorically exempt from the anti-slap law. Here, Freedom finds legal support. The case law has distinguished for anti-slap purposes between a client suing his or her former client for actions taken on the client's behalf and a client suing his or her former attorney for actions taken on behalf of another client and he cites case law to that. Okay. Freriedman points to the following allegations as undertaken.

[00:24:58]Freriedman says when Flores was a former client and thus Freriedman says subject to the anti-SLAP law, A failing to maintain and return a complete client list.

[00:25:09]B failing to disclose conflict of interest when Freriedman began representing Baldoni and C Frman's commenting on Flores's action and Baldon's character to the press via the media statement. Well, that's kind of strange because I believe and like I don't mean to talk about a deceased person. The estate still lives and survives, but I believe that Mr. Flores himself was sadly sadly um passed when Brian started representing Justin. I I think but the court does agree and does not in part. Okay, it agrees and disagrees. The first two categories, failing to maintain and return the client file and failing to inform Flores of the conflict are not actions Freeman took solely on behalf of different clients. Rather, these are allegations about obligations that Freriedman owed directly to Flores and failed to perform on Flores's behalf. These are thus activities that could give rise to an ordinary action for legal malpractice, but not for the other stuff that they're saying. They are therefore categorically outside the protections of the anti-SLAP law.

[00:26:22]Indeed, contrary to Freriedman's argument, the only case to address the issue specifically finds that a failure to properly return a client file to a client is an act of legal malpractice, categorically falling outside the anti-slap law. Thus, the allegations concerning client files and a disclosure to Flores about a conflict of interest are not protected by the anti-SLAP law. and Freriedman has not satisfied his burden at the first anti-slap phase of those allegations. So Freriedman just went full out like, "Nah, anti-Slap's going to protect me from everything." And the judge is like, "Nah, not with these claims. These claims are actually malpractice. They don't fall under the anti-Slap. Maybe they could have filed something else to dismiss them, but not in this case." Okay, not right now, at least. That leaves the media statements and similar press statements. These statements plainly were not made on Flores's behalf during Freriedman's the representation of Flores. Rather, they were made on behalf as of a subsequent client Baloni during Freriedman's representation of Baldoni. The media statement and similar statements are therefore not categorically outside the antislap law. And since the media statements and similar statements are not categorically outside the anti-slap law, they are clearly and obviously protected by the anti-slap law. These are statements made to the media on a matter of intense public interest. As a long line of California case law recognizes, issues involving celebrities like the Baldoni lively litigation are topics of widpread public discussion and therefore may be an issue of public interest and clearly it was and the judge points to the case law of Jackson versus Mayweather in 2017. Moreover, the media statements and similar statements clearly contributed directly to that discussion. In making the media statement and similar statements, Freriedman factually participated in or further the discourse that makes the issue one a public interest. These statements were therefore under governing California law statements concerning matters of public interest protected by the anti-SLAP law. In some the court concludes that Freriedman has shown that the complaints allegations concerning the media statement and similar press statements are only those allegations fall within the anti-slap law. Then the judge and the court turns to the second anti-slap step which is step two of the allegations. At the second step of the anti-slap process, plaintiff has the burden of showing. So now it's the plaintiff's burden of showing that the claims based on protected activity have at least do they have minimal merit. Okay? Can they proceed? Will will it work? Will it go?

[00:29:35]Will a jury or a judge or whomever find that this might rule in your favor? Like is this meritless or do you have minimal merit to proceed with this claim? So make sure that they're not false claims.

[00:29:49]You know, in ruling on the motion, the court does not weigh credibility nor evaluate the weight of evidence.

[00:29:57]Instead, the court accepts as true all evidence favorable to the plaintiff and assesses the defendant's evidence only to determine if it defeats the plaintiff's submission as a matter of law. Here the estate has the burden of showing a triable issue of fact as to whether the media statement and similar statements can be a basis for the breach of contract, legal malpractice, fidiciary duty, invasion of privacy and defamation claims. The court distinguishes between the difference causes of action. It concludes that for the attorney client related causes of action which is the breach of contract fiduciary duty legal malpractice there is a showing of minimal merit for the defamation and invasion of privacy causes of action. There is not. Okay. So they won on defamation and invasion of privacy but they lost on the other three claims. Since the media statement is the only factual basis alleged for the defamation and invasion of privacy causes of action and since those claims are clearly without merit. Clearly without merit, he says since those claims are clearly without merit, those two causes of actions are slappable in their entirety. Okay. Legal malpractice, breach of fidiciary duty, and breach of contract. Freriedman argues that the media statements cannot be a basis for these claims for three reasons. One, it is a statement protected by the true and fair reporting privilege of civil code 47D.

[00:31:39]Two, it is protected by the litigation privilege of section 47DN C. The media statements did not breach Freriedman's fiduciary, legal, or contractual obligation to his former client because interalia it did not reveal a client confidence. Okay. But in the court's view, each of these arguments fail.

[00:32:01]Okay. They fail. First, the judge says on the record here, whether the true and fair reporting privilege applies is a question of fact for the jury. The fair report privilege confers an absolute privilege on any fair and true report in or communication to a public journal of a judicial proceeding or anything said in the course thereof.

[00:32:28]But it wasn't in the course of that litigation now was it? Here there is ample question as to whether the report was in fact true and fair. The judge says, "Unlike cases in which the true and fair privilege was found by courts to apply as a matter of law, the media statement does not merely recite the facts of an underlying legal proceeding.

[00:32:51]Nor does it present basic facts of a legal proceeding with some literary license of mild puffery."

[00:32:59]Mild puffery, he says. Rather, it makes affirmative statements about the merits of both Flores's idea submission case and the character of Baloni. It claims that Baldoni and his associates were great people, that they did absolutely nothing wrong in connection with the facts that led to the underlying action, that there was no liability whatsoever for Baldoni, and that Baldoni was exceedingly honorable and highly ethical. All of this is in dispute. I don't like that. I don't like that. None of that's in dispute. That's true facts.

[00:33:41]not not for the estate but you know for for how I feel about about you know about the case but all of this is in dispute of course because he was your attorney that you were representing and now that you're representing him you know you could have just said you defend everyone that has a case you're willing to go forward I don't know something like that but I guess they're saying that by the statements that he made it definitely was not good for Mr. Flores.

[00:34:08]The estate has introduced a declaration from Melissa Eager, who had knowledge of the facts leading to the underlying dispute and who strongly disputes Baldon's integrity.

[00:34:21]Who strongly disputes Baldon's integrity and character in connection with the film that gave rise to the original litigation. It has introduced another declaration from Clement Suriri and that's the individual in this case indicating that Freriedman did not interview the key witness in the underlying litigation and that Freriedman failed to consider critical evidence as to liability. While this evidence is certainly subject to dispute and may or may not ultimately be credited by a jury, it is more than enough to establish at least a triable issue as to whether the statements made by Brian Freeman in the media statement were true and fair. Accordingly, the true and fair privilege is not enough for Freeman to prevail at the second anti-SLAP state. Second, the litigation privilege under civil code section 47B does not apply to the media statement either. The privilege does not protect media statements such as this one. Okay.

[00:35:27]The privilege simply does not apply to press conferences and press releases of which the media statement was one.

[00:35:37]Third, contrary to Brian Freeman's argument, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the media statement violated Freriedman's professional obligation to not disclose client confidences. Freriedman argues that the statement cannot have disclosed any client confidences since the media statement refers only to Baldon's character and information he learned from Baldoni, not to the information he received from Flores. There is a significant problem with this argument.

[00:36:09]Oh no. It misunderstands freedom's professional obligations and the meaning of an attorney's disclosure of confidential information under the law.

[00:36:20]The relation of attorney and client is one of highest confidence. And as to professional information gained while this relation exists, the attorney's lips are forever sealed. And this is not withstanding his subsequent discharge by his client. So if you have attorney client privilege that is lips are sealed forever ever forever ever forever ever ever. Confidential information for these purposes is far broader than matter protected by the attorney client privilege. It is also broader than matter that is in an ordinary language sense confidential. Although the attorney's duty is to refrain from disclosing a client's secrets, the word secret in this context has a very broad application and refers to any information gained in the professional relationship that the client has requested be held in violate or disclosure of which would be embarrassing or likely detrimental to the client. Critically, the duty of confidentiality a lawyer holds to a former client extends even to disclosing material obtained from someone other than the client. The duty applies to all information relating to client representation, whatever its source.

[00:37:46]Indeed, it extends even matters of public record that have been communicated to the attorney in confidence and that might cause the client or former client public embarrassment.

[00:38:00]Thus, in the broad sense, the California law forbids attorneys, it forbids attorneys from disclosing client confidence. The media statement appears on its face to violate a client confidence. Oh, no. It certainly appears that the media statement Brian Freeman was disclosing confidential information learned in a client representation to the detriment of a former client. Such disclosure would appear to violate the purpose of the California rules protecting client confidentiality. The estate has also put in evidence of damage arising from the media statement, including costs expended to respond to the media interest in the older lawsuit.

[00:38:46]Fourth, while Freeman raises the argument, he cites to no cases establishing that the foregoing limitations of disclosure, which impose stricter professional obligations on attorneys, then the limitations that apply to ordinary citizens under the First Amendment, would not apply merely because the media statement might not constitute actionable defamation under ordinary on the record here, First Amendment standards. Yeah. like lawyers have, you know, they have higher standards of what they what they can go out there and say. Defamation and invasion of privacy, by contrast, the defamation and invasion of privacy claims lack merit entirely. Deceased persons and their estates do not have a cause of action for defamation, nor do they have claims for invasion of privacy. That claim as well dies with the person and cannot be asserted by an estate.

[00:39:45]I mean, do they have to say it like that? It dies with the person. Jeez Louise, that's tough. Here, the only basis for a claim of defamation or invasion of privacy is that Flores was defamed and that his privacy invaded by the media statement. Although the estate's admin Clement Shuri has also brought the action under his own name, there is no allegation that the media statement or similar press statements defamed Suri individually or invaded Surri's own privacy. Nor does it appear it could be. There is also no basis alleged for the defamation and invasion of privacy claims beyond the media statement and similar statements in the press. These two causes of action therefore are entirely subject to the anti-slap law under anti-slap prong one.

[00:40:36]They entirely lack minimal merit under anti-slap prong. Accordingly, these two causes of action fail completely. Okay.

[00:40:45]Completely. So kind of crazy to bring those claims of defamation and invasion of privacy when the law doesn't even like support that. And that's why they were like completely gone and that's why now Brian Freeman and his law firm are counter suing for the attorney fees. Now what was dismissed just briefly defamation and invasion of privacy. But what is staying and I feel like the bigger claims that are staying in this case are legal malpractice, breach of fidiciary duty and breach of contract. I mean that is still alive. And I don't know, but the judge says that the plaintiffs, they've showed enough merit to proceed. And I mean, legal malpractice is wild. Now, for the purposes of this video, I can't go over Brian Freeman's entire um his entire motion for the anti-slap laws because it's 83 pages, y'all. It's 83 pages. But basically, I'll just give you the Cole's notes, okay? What he's asking for. And just to put this into perspective of how much Blake is probably going to ask for for her anti-slip loss, he is asking for $53,000.

[00:41:57]Okay? And that is just to fight to file the motion, right? To h to get this dismissed. I mean, it's pretty crazy.

[00:42:04]So, they're asking for $53,000, which doesn't sound like a lot, but I mean, it's it's a lot. That's only for that one like to submit to be fighting this motion, right? to have have your uh case dismissed. So, they're arguing that that's how much they want. Okay? And that is because he successfully got the defamation and the invasion of privacy dismissed under California anti-slap law. They are prevailing defendants.

[00:42:30]Okay? So, they are generally entitled to mandatory attorney fees. So, Freiedman side is arguing that we won enough of the anti-slap motion to qualify as the prevailing party. They specifically argue that they were at least 75% successful on the anti-slap motion.

[00:42:49]Not sure about that, but you know, because there's still three out of the five claims remaining. The filing repeatedly emphasizes that even partial anti-slap wins can justify fees.

[00:43:00]Defendants do not need to win every single claim and that the California courts favor awarding fees to successful anti-slap defendants. The filing also explains that that some of these anti-slap defendants that they handled like Jean Paul Jasse was built at $795 an hour. Okay. And Jeffrey Payne was built at 6505 650 an hour. Okay. But they actually structured it as you know just give us a $50,000 flat fee. So instead of you know the hourly is kind of crazy. Okay. Okay.

[00:43:36]So their total that they want is 53,000.

[00:43:39]The billing frames the anti-slap result as a major litigation victory. Okay.

[00:43:44]They are claiming victory here because it eliminated entire claims. It did most of like he was like nah that needs to go that needs to go. It reduced discovery.

[00:43:54]It reduced damages exposure and it narrowed the case substantially. So right now Freriedman is asking the court to get the estate to pay him. Okay. the $53.5,000.

[00:44:07]Okay. And we'll see. That doesn't mean that he's necessarily going to get it.

[00:44:11]And now I did see in the court docket that there's actually appeals being done. So now we're stuck on the appeals to see where this is going to go. But I think it's crazy that they filed these causes of action and they don't even fall under California law. So of course they were going to get dismissed. What kind of lawyer? You know what I mean?

[00:44:31]Like that's kind of crazy. But something I found on X by Mr. Roman Shast who is like so brilliant. I mean his breakdowns are absolutely amazing. He is he is on it. Okay. He is on it. He says that if these claims were advanced, serious questions arise about the quality of the legal advice that Siri received and the litigation strategy that was pursued in his name. At this stage, continuing to fight the fee motion may only deepen the damage. Seeking independent counsel may be the only prudent step remaining before even more money is spent defending positions that arguably should never have been asserted in the first place. One of his attorneys websites displays a popup advertisement promoting a special offer, a $550 value. That alone says a great deal in my opinion.

[00:45:31]And yeah, kind of does. It kind of does.

[00:45:35]I feel like the estate bringing these lawsuits and now Brian Freeman being able to acclaim attorney fee or claim attorney fees and going back and forth and back and forth and fighting this is even making an even more bigger deal than the media statements that Brian Freeman gave. like that kind of just like came and went I feel like but now fighting it and going back and forth and the media eventually is going to pick up on this case and start reporting on it depending on which way the wind blows but I feel like ah sometimes it's better to just let things go than cause a whole bunch of ruckus and noise because it doesn't sometimes sometimes it doesn't work in your favor and I'm over here to like fight for your rights you know what I'm saying like fight stand up use your voice, speak out, use your voice. But sometimes you do have to weigh the pros and cons about how to go about it. Now, had they just filed the malpractice suit probably would have won or it looks like the judge is kind of favoring in that way based on the law of what attorneys can and cannot say. So, had they just gone about it kind of like the legal way and not try to create all of these new causes of action and things that don't even fall under California law, I feel like might have been better for them.

[00:46:53]But now that they've had half their case completely dismissed, it's not a good look. And I mean, we've learned that now from the Blake Lively case where she even had to withdraw her cause of emotional infliction of emotional distress and also, you know, have 10 and then 10 of the claims got dismissed anyway. So, it's kind of like, you know, just just careful out there. Careful out there with all these lawsuits. You know what I'm saying? It's like, I'm going to see you. I'm going to see you. I'm going to see you. I'm going to see you. I'm going to see you. Yes, there is a time and place for that. But then sometimes I think you just have to weigh out the pros and cons. I don't think anybody would have held on to that statement had they not immediately filed um these lawsuits, you know, and now they've lost a lot of their claim. But some of them will go through. We'll see if this thing gets settled. I mean, at the end of the day, they might just be like, you know what, I might only get X amount of money, so that's pretty much the money that you're asking for. Let's just settle this thing. I don't know what's going to happen, but I don't know. I just think it's quite interesting. I thought that one was uh was interesting.

[00:48:02]But congratulations to Brian Freriedman, you know, who defended Justin Baldoni and Wayfair to the best of his ability.

[00:48:10]Completely got justice, at least for now. And we'll see what happens in the other lawsuits. Still waiting on Jed Wallace. Still waiting on Stephanie Jones. Still waiting on New York Times reply. You know what I'm saying? Let's go. But anyway, I hope you all are having the most amazing day. Um, I have to go now because I am headed out to the movies. I'm going to go see Obsession tonight with a friend. Pretty excited. I honestly don't know anything about it except my girlfriend told me to see it. She saw it last week. She said it's really good. And it's like a 21-year-old director, first-time filmmaker. So, I'm all about that. Um, I like going into movies without knowing too much about it. I don't even think I've seen a trailer for this movie, which don't tell anyone that's really bad. That's really bad. But I'm I'm I'm always down for an adventure. So, I'm very excited to go and do that. And yes, I will be back with more. And if you want me to go through Freriedman's entire um you know, his argument for the attorney fees, I can definitely do that. There's also a breakdown of hourly, but you should just know it's costing a lot of money. When you think that the lively case got up to like what 14 almost 1500 filings, do you know how much money that is? Billable hours. Bro, his one motion to dismiss is $53,000.

[00:49:32]Lively has dozens of attorney. I mean, I just can't I It's probably like she's probably going to ask for some crazy amount. We already know in the Jed Wallace thing just for her to file the dismissal for jurisdiction, she's asking Jed for 800,000 plus. So imagine how much she's still going to want from Wayfair. It's so crazy. But anyway, drop your comments. Let me know what you think and what more do you want. You know, we still haven't touched on the Taylor Swift thing that's going on. I know there's a Mr. Bees lawsuit happening. And I'm also very interested in the Tom Hardy situation. Okay, so let me know what you want to hear tomorrow.

[00:50:09]and I will be with you with that. Drop all your comments. Have the best day.

[00:50:16]I love you. I'll talk to you soon. What was that? Bye.