A letter from Emily Sylvan Kim

Update on 8/4/2026

First, I would like to thank everyone who has shared their support in the months since we prevailed on summary judgment in the Freeman v. Deebs-Elkenaney case. Whether you are a current or potential client, an editor, or someone in this industry, knowing that our work matters to you has truly helped all of the defendants in our healing process.

Now, we have another meaningful development to share. Copyright law is unusual in that the winning side, plaintiff or defendant, can ask the court to hold the other side responsible for its legal fees. This is based on the concept that copyright exists to enrich the public through access to creative works, and that only happens if parties with meritorious claims or defenses can afford to see them through. On July 28, 2026, Judge McMahon granted the defendants' motion for attorneys' fees, with the amount to be determined shortly, and ordered the plaintiff to post a bond to secure the costs of her pending appeal.

Here is the order, and I highly recommend reading it in full: Dkt 583 Freeman case - Order on Fees

The judge's own words say more than I ever could. On the merits of the case that consumed almost five years of our lives:

"This was not a close case. It was not an arguably close case. Once someone read the works, it was an open and shut case."

"Anyone who was familiar with the law of substantial similarity in the Second Circuit, and who took the time to read Plaintiff's manuscripts (when they were finally produced and identified) against the four novels written by Defendant Wolff that were at issue in this lawsuit, would have no difficulty deciding that the works were not substantially similar."

On how the case was litigated against us:

"Freeman's misleading (and in some instances, plainly inaccurate) descriptions of her own works in order to create an illusion of similarity gives rise to a strong inference of bad faith."

"Plaintiff can and should - indeed, must - pay for such bad faith litigation conduct."

"Frankly, I cannot recall, after almost 28 years on the federal bench, an instance in which bad faith was so easily established."

“In sum, Freeman's claims of substantial similarity were objectively unreasonable. Any assertion to the contrary is itself an objectively unreasonable argument.”

"I should note that Freeman is herself a lawyer, which makes this behavior all the worse."

This award matters far beyond the individual parties in this case. As the judge explained, quoting a precedent case, it will serve "to deter this plaintiff, and other similar[ly] situated plaintiffs, from bringing unreasonable claims based on a cost/benefit analysis that tells such plaintiffs that they can score big if they win and that there will be no adverse consequences if they lose."

The reason this order means so much to me is that prevailing at summary judgment never quite felt like winning. It felt like not losing. A court can rule in your favor without ever saying that the case against you should never have been brought. This decision is different. While many saw this as a case about genre fiction and tropes, this decision reveals it was a scheme fueled by “’vexatious’ and bad faith conduct” designed to create “the illusion of similarity.” In a federal judge's own words, “Freeman's alleged similarities relied on misleading characterizations and descriptions of her works - characterizations and descriptions that were wholly untethered to the works themselves.” This is really a case about truth and nothing is more important than that.

As an English major, I only hoped to do some good in the world with my love of literature. I became a literary agent because I believed books can make us better. In this case, books became a weapon. But Tracy Wolff, Liz Pelletier, and I made it to the other side stronger than we started and provided what we hope will be significant protection for future creators. I like to think that the English major I once was would be proud to see this important line in the sand we helped to draw.

Thank you all once again from the bottom of my heart and here's to a future full of wonderful books.

Emily

3/19/2026

Dear clients, colleagues, and friends,

Since you are here, you likely know that I am a literary agent. I love my work. Ever since I started working in publishing twenty-five years ago, and particularly since I founded Prospect Agency in 2005, it has been my honor and privilege to help authors grow and develop their writing careers.

Since March 2022, I have been a defendant in a federal lawsuit in the Southern District of New York alleging that I, along with my client Tracy Wolff, Entangled Publishing, Macmillan, and Universal Studios, infringed the work of one of my former clients in the creation of the Crave series.

On March 16, 2026, Judge Colleen McMahon of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a 157-page Decision and Order granting summary judgment in favor of all defendants and dismissing the case. After nearly four years of litigation, this phase of the matter has come to a conclusion.

This moment is incredibly meaningful to me, and I am personally so gratified for the thoughtful, thorough opinion of the Court. I want to take this opportunity to briefly explain why I believe the outcome matters, not just for me and the other defendants in this case, but for every working author and every professional in publishing.

The Claims

In March 2022, my former client Lynne Freeman, a practicing attorney, filed a lawsuit alleging that Tracy Wolff’s bestselling Crave series infringed her unpublished work: six drafts and several sets of notes encompassing one unfinished young adult paranormal romance novel. I had served as Freeman’s agent from December 2010 to March 2014. Despite submitting her work to more than twenty editors during those three years, I was unable to sell her book. We parted amicably. Her lawsuit, filed more than eight years after our professional relationship ended, alleged that I had used her work to help another client create a similar novel. Needless to say, such a claim, even when unproven, can be devastating to the career of a literary agent, a profession built entirely on trust.

The Context

Even though the financial and emotional toll a lawsuit can take is enormous, we knew the stakes were too high to consider yielding to the intense pressure from all sides simply to make it go away. This case involved extensive and deeply invasive fact discovery, including the production of private documents, emails, and text messages, as well as depositions of me and my current and former staff over several long years. The process was intimidating, terrifying, and Kafkaesque.

Everything got harder in January 2025, when The New Yorker published a feature length article under the headline, “Did a Best-Selling Romantasy Novelist Steal Another Writer’s Story?” The question itself arguably functioned as a verdict. Many people in the literary world dream of appearing in The New Yorker, but not like this. The article spawned a wave of social media conjecture and censure. Witnessing my client endure this maelstrom even as she struggled to maintain her creativity and love of writing was the most poignant parts of this entire experience for me.

The Decision

Despite everything, from the beginning I firmly believed we had to fight Freeman’s claims, which we knew to be untrue.

Tracy Wolff did not copy Lynne Freeman. After reading every word of every work at issue Judge McMahon agreed with the position we have taken all along, and ruled:

“Freeman’s novel and Wolff’s Crave novels are indeed similar, but only in the ways that all young adult romantasy fiction novels are similar to each other. At the granular level, looking at their unique creative expression, they are substantially different, not substantially similar.”

The Court found that the similarities Freeman identified were limited to unprotectable genre conventions and tropes common to young adult paranormal romance as well as “common phrases any author is free to use.” If a published author can be forced to defend herself every time someone claims that two books in the same genre share a supernatural love interest, a heroine who discovers hidden powers, or a commonplace setting, then no author writing in any genre is safe. Similarly, if a published author can be forced to settle every time someone claims two books share common phrases such as “well, well, well,” “I’m so sorry this happened,” “I don’t have a clue,” or “I feel exactly the same way,” no one can feel safe writing any story at all. In fact, the Court stated in its opinion that “Arguing that the use of these common phrases demonstrates substantial similarity trivializes copyright law.”

In its ruling, the Court did something that shouldn’t have been extraordinary but it was: it read the books. As the Court stated, “The Court has personally read every word of the four Wolff books and the six Freeman drafts and nine sets of notes at issue in this case,” That meant every word of Freeman’s six drafts, each roughly 450 pages long, all nine sets of Freeman’s notes, and all four Crave novels, totaling more than 2,750 printed pages. In all, the Court reviewed upwards of 6,000 pages of material.

By its own account, the Court noted, “That was a lot of reading.”

The Court then applied the Second Circuit’s well-established test for substantial similarity, examining the total concept and feel, theme, characters, plot, sequence, pace, and setting of both bodies of work, finding:

“In sum, the total concept and feel of BMR/Masqued and Crave are vastly different in substance, style, structure, length, tone, and mood. They ‘engender very different visceral responses from their readers.’ As a matter of law, they are not substantially similar.”

Among the Court’s observations:

“Hot, sexy, dangerous boys, central to virtually all young adult romance novels, cannot be copyrighted.”

“Likewise, the notion that Katmere is substantially similar to the ‘Old-World European chateau’ in which the MacKays live, simply because ‘chateau’ is the French word for ‘castle,’ borders on the frivolous.”

“Could the more discerning ordinary reader conclude that, despite their many differences, the aesthetic appeal of Freeman’s work and Wolff’s is the same? … The answer is no.”

The Court called this “a case that is easily disposed of once one reads the allegedly infringed and infringing works against each other.” This ruling means everything to me.

I became a literary agent because I believe that stories matter, that the act of writing and reading are among the most important things human beings do. In resolving this case by reading the books themselves, the Court returned the analysis to what matters most: not abstractions, charts, or conjecture, but the works themselves. I am fortified knowing this opinion will stand as a serious and substantial piece of legal analysis, one that future courts, authors, and publishing professionals can rely on.

Why This Matters

In this business, reputation is everything. I spent decades building a network of authors who trust me with their most precious creations, and editors who trust me to help authors navigate the challenging landscape of publishing and bring powerful books to readers.

The accusations against me cut to the heart of who I am and undermined the vital and important work I know agents do. At times this lawsuit was so painful and I despaired. But I never considered compromise or anything other than seeing this matter to its full and vindicating conclusion. By standing firm, we arrived at a resolution where the federal court articulated, in 157 carefully reasoned pages, the principle that genre conventions are the commons of storytelling, shared ground on which all authors build, and which no single author can fence off. That principle was always the law. But it has rarely been stated with this much specificity, this much textual engagement, and this much force. That is the greater good that emerged from our refusal to settle. It came at an extraordinary price but it has extraordinary worth.

Looking Forward

Thank you to my attorney, Lance Koonce, whose skill, dedication, and steady counsel over four years made this outcome possible. Thank you to Tracy Wolff, whose extraordinary talent and perseverance through this ordeal have been a constant source of strength. Thank you to Entangled Publishing, especially the publisher Liz Pelletier, for your forward thinking and refusal to back down when the easier path was always available.

To my family and friends who brought food and comfort during the many late nights, who never stopped seeing me for who I am, you kept me grounded as the foundations about my very identity shifted beneath my feet. To my colleagues at the AALA and the editors I am so fortunate to work with every day, you gave me strength and fortitude when I needed it most. To my team at Prospect Agency, especially my assistant Ellen, who kept me laughing even during my darkest days. And most importantly, to my clients, who stood by me, who never questioned my integrity and whose trust, creativity and talent gave me the reason and the resolve to keep doing my work every single day. You know who you are, and I will never forget it.

To every author who writes within a genre or who writes at all: your work is your own. Tell your stories boldly and without fear. This decision stands as affirmation that the law protects your right to do exactly that. This is what Tracy, Liz, and I have been fighting for all along.

And to those who created their own narratives about this lawsuit before hearing from us, who rendered judgment without reading the books and before a verdict, I ask only this: cover the ending with the same energy you gave the beginning. If the question was worthy of a headline, the answer is worthy of one too.

I never imagined I’d be in a lawsuit. I didn’t ask for this challenge, and at times it felt like too much to bear, but sometimes life puts us in a situation where we have no choice but to step up with fortitude and do the work that needs to be done to make the world the place we want it to be. The place we aspire for it to be. We did not settle because principles - like truth and the freedom to write stories unencumbered by legal threat - are worth more than the terrible cost it takes to defend them.

Emily Sylvan Kim

President of Prospect Agency

March 19, 2026