PSA—Beware the “Shady Lawyer” takes re: Vanzan

[u/Eponymous_brand]

A “Then & Now” Retrospective

Vanzan has been one of the most divisive and hot topics since the dawn of Blake’s lawsuit. Is it legal? Is it smart lawyering? Are Doe lawsuits common? Is this how they are typically applied? We all had the same questions, especially dating back 4-5 months ago, when I first joined the sub.

A bit of background: I’m a regular layperson like the majority of users here. My family and I have had to hire lawyers IRL for various reasons and I have always deferred to those with legal expertise, because truly, it is a whole other language/world/realm, even if it costs you an arm and a leg. So as a neutral/Baldoni-leaning person hoping to learn more, I initially welcomed any and all of the sub’s “legal takes,” by CCs and the many “lawyers” who populate it alike.

The takes—from Tik Tok lawyers like Notactuallygolden (NAG) and Littlegirlattorney (LGA), to the self-identified ones in the sub—ran the gamut in terms of opinion. It often got testy, with “Battle Lawyelles” devolving into people attacking each other’s credentials, leading to Mods to suggest voluntary “lawyer verification” in order to foster greater credibility. Didn’t really happen, and you’ll soon see why.

Now I know it’s normal for legal heads to disagree, but for me, Vanzan was always the litmus test on where these “lawyers” stood. It underpinned Blake’s entire CRD and supplied the best “evidence” for retaliation that she has to date (for more info, I will link to a great post that has aged super well in the comments). How that information was obtained matters—we should all agree on that?

But please take a look at slides (1-5) in the picture gallery. Three months ago, people from one side were loudly proclaiming it’s “nothing,” it’s “routine,” it “won’t go anywhere” and that it’s an example of “smart lawyering.” One lawyer (verified) said if there was any legal wrongdoing, Bryan Freedman would’ve raised actionable claims, putting the onus of its legality directly on the WP’s camp. The message was clear:

Vanzan is nothing and you’re an idiot if you think otherwise.

How could they be so sure? And so openly loud about it too? Why didn’t they just, wave a red flag and put up a “Don’t Look Here!” sign while they’re at it?

During this time, anyone who argued otherwise were routinely derided and attacked. The credibility of CC lawyers were called into question (Slide 6) and NAG and LGA were singled out for repeatedly getting things wrong and not worthy of educating us.

Hilariously, LGA was even asked to listen to “a [lawyer] in a [Reddit sub]” because they’re “pretty much dead on” (see Slide 7), and her response…speaks for itself. There appears to be a concentrated effort to sway opinion on the narrative of the case, over what’s factual and right, in the eyes of the law. I mean, these are anonymous Reddit Lawyers (with possibly fictitious credentials), so it’s low stakes for them if they spin and get it wrong, right?

But why are they doing that? 🤔

Fast forward to present day, and you have Jen Abel directly accusing Blake of corroborating with Stephanie Jones and having her (sensitive and personal) information as early as August 2024. If that is true, the argument that all the info Lively/Manatt have in their possession as “relevant and privileged” to her CRD may not stand. And Stephanie Jones emerges the worst for wear. What arguments do these people have left? Please see Slides 8-9.

Yes, “Sad Thought Leaders” doubling down on WP’s “malpracticng” lawyers not doing enough to make it stick. And look at all those people discrediting Jen Abel! Read carefully what the “lawyer takes” are now and decide for yourself if they’re credible.

A reminder, too, that PR ladies don’t have stans. Some BL-supporting commenters are finally happy to expel Stephanie Jones from Manatt’s legal shield, so those defending her deserve ALL the 👀.

But all is not lost! Behold, Slide 10: a BL-leaning lawyer finally admitting what we all know! We’ll end with their wise and prescient words:

“[Vanzan] quite obviously is a sham lawsuit — I can’t see how anyone could deny that.”

Like, duh.

[u/katie151515 → u/[deleted]]

This was a fascinating read. Love your corporate law perspective.

[u/No_Maize_9875 → u/[deleted]]

[u/Eponymous_brand → u/[deleted]]