Isabela Ferrer Faces Legal Turmoil Following Breakthrough Role in “It Ends With Us”
Isabela Ferrer gained significant recognition when she was cast as Young Lily in the highly anticipated film “It Ends With Us,” portraying the younger version of Blake Lively’s character. However, just a year after her debut, Ferrer finds herself embroiled in a complex legal battle involving Lively and the film’s director, Justin Baldoni, both of whom have subpoenaed her.
Recently, Ferrer’s attorney accused Baldoni of “harassing” her and using his financial influence to manipulate her response to Lively’s subpoena. Ferrer is eager to distance herself from the ongoing conflict, which has escalated since Lively filed a lawsuit against Baldoni, alleging sexual harassment and claiming he orchestrated a covert campaign to tarnish her reputation after she raised concerns about his behavior.
Lively’s lawsuit includes serious allegations, including claims that Baldoni added a controversial scene in which Young Lily loses her virginity. After filming this scene, Baldoni reportedly made an inappropriate remark to the young actors, stating, “I know I’m not supposed to say this, but that was hot.”
In response to these allegations, Baldoni’s legal team released text messages from Ferrer in which she praised him as a “great director” and expressed that he was “wonderful to work with.” His attorneys argue that as tensions rose between Baldoni and Lively during the film’s promotional period, Ferrer felt pressured to distance herself from Baldoni.
In February, Lively’s legal team subpoenaed Ferrer, requesting any communication she had with either party involved in the case. This development compelled Ferrer to hire her own attorney and seek assurances that Baldoni’s team, as her employer, would cover her legal expenses—a situation that sparked a complicated dispute.
Ferrer’s lawyer, Sanford Michelman, alleged that Baldoni was attempting to condition financial support on controlling Ferrer’s response to the subpoena and her choice of legal representation. Michelman claimed that Baldoni’s team referenced a fictitious case, which he suspects may have originated from artificial intelligence, to argue their point.
While negotiations were underway, Baldoni’s team asked Michelman if he would accept service of the subpoena on Ferrer’s behalf, which he declined. Baldoni’s lawyers are now pushing for “alternative service,” which would compel Michelman to accept the subpoena for Ferrer. Michelman is contesting this motion, arguing that Baldoni’s team has not demonstrated that Ferrer is evading the subpoena.
Ferrer’s legal representatives assert that Baldoni’s actions, along with the disputes related to Lively’s subpoena, reveal a “broader pattern of intimidation” aimed at Ferrer. “While Ms. Ferrer is committed to fulfilling her legal obligations, she will not succumb to intimidation or coercion from any party involved in these proceedings,” Michelman stated.
In a recent court filing, Ferrer has requested that the court reject Baldoni’s motion entirely and impose suitable sanctions against him. As the case unfolds, Baldoni’s team has not provided comments to media inquiries. The trial is set to take place in March, and many are watching closely as these events develop.
For more updates on this ongoing legal battle and its impact on the film industry, stay tuned.
