Remove Your Case.Law Record. Pay Only After Removal.

The page is taken down at the source. Realistic mainly when a court has sealed or expunged the case and the order is presented. This is the strongest outcome, and it follows a court order obtained through an attorney.

The opinion stays as precedent, but your name is replaced with initials or a pseudonym so the page no longer surfaces in a search for you. Most reliable when the court itself has ordered it.

If the publisher declines, Google may still remove a result that exposes specific personal information, such as a home address or ID number, and some publishers will block a page from search engines on request. The page still exists, but it stops appearing when someone searches you.

In 2026, a Case.Law opinion does not need to be clicked to cause damage. An AI tool can repeat case details as fact, and the person asking may never visit the original page.

Yes, when a request has a documented basis. Case.Law is the Caselaw Access Project, run by the Harvard Law School Library Innovation Lab, and it holds published court opinions scanned from printed law reporters. It has no removal form, so a request goes to the Lab and is strongest with a court order sealing the case or anonymizing the opinion. Where the Lab does not act, we turn to the other databases carrying the same opinion and Google's own removal policies.

There is no form to fill in. A request goes to the Library Innovation Lab and should give the citation and URL, who you are in the case, what you are asking for (anonymization, a search engine block, or removal), and the documents that support it, above all any court order. You can write to the Lab yourself at no cost. Reputation Resolutions prepares and manages the request, handles Google afterward and deals with the other sites carrying the opinion, and is paid only if the result is achieved.

These are the grounds that give a request its footing: a court order sealing or expunging the case, a court order replacing your name with initials or a pseudonym, a minor named in full, a documented safety risk, and a scan error or mistaken identity. Personal information in the opinion text, such as a home address or Social Security number, can also qualify for removal from Google. A free assessment shows which applies to you.

We give you a realistic expectation in the consultation and keep you updated as responses come in. The Library Innovation Lab reviews requests on its own schedule, and Google's review of a removal request is separate.

You owe nothing for a request that does not succeed, and we turn to what does not depend on the Lab: the other databases carrying the opinion, each with its own rules, and Google's personal information policy where the text exposes specific details. A new court order obtained later gives a fresh request a new basis.

Not at once. If a page is removed, anonymized or blocked from search engines, Google drops or updates the result when it next recrawls the page. We ask Google to refresh it as soon as the change is confirmed, at no additional charge. Keep in mind that the same opinion on another site is a separate search result and is not affected.

Almost never. A published opinion is public law, and the full Case.Law data set is openly downloadable, so the same text commonly appears on CourtListener, Justia, Casetext, Leagle, vLex, CaseMine, FindLaw and Google Scholar. Often one of those, not Case.Law, is the page ranking for your name. We map every copy at the start and tell you which ones are realistic to address.

Case.Law is the home of the Caselaw Access Project. Between 2013 and 2018 the Harvard Law School Library digitized about 40 million pages of printed court reporters, producing more than 6.5 million published decisions of state and federal courts across roughly 360 years. It contains written opinions, not dockets or filings, and it is a historical collection, not a live feed of new cases. Since March 2024 the data has been available without restriction, which is why copies appear on other sites.

They can. AI tools that search the web, including ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, Perplexity and Gemini, draw on indexed pages. A page that drops out of Google is less likely to be retrieved in a live search.

You can write to the Lab yourself for free. What we add is the documentation, the follow-up, the Google request, and the same work across the other databases carrying the opinion, which is usually where most of the effort is. You pay only after a removal is confirmed.

A formal background check draws on court records directly, not on Case.Law. What a Case.Law page affects is the informal check: someone who searches your name and finds an old opinion. That informal search is the problem this service addresses.

We handle requests to both, and each has its own rules. CourtListener, run by Free Law Project, publishes a removal policy under which it will generally block search engines from indexing a page on request. Justia's handling varies by case. We tell you which outcome fits each site before you commit.

Removal is strictly pay-for-results. There is no upfront retainer and no fee until removal is confirmed. Pricing depends on the number of opinions and the number of other sites carrying them. Schedule a free consultation and we will give you a written assessment and a quote based on your situation.

Because the Case.Law data set is open, an opinion dealt with on one site can turn up on another site that imports the same data later. That is a new page that needs its own request. Tell us if you see one and we will look at it.

Yes. The collection covers published decisions of federal courts and of state courts across the country, drawn from printed reporters. What it does not include is the material most people think of as a court record: dockets, complaints, arrest records and unpublished orders. If what you found is a docket page, it is on a different site, such as PacerMonitor, UniCourt or Trellis, and a different process applies.

Yes. Casetext, CaseMine, Leagle and vLex are published-opinion databases, like Case.Law, and each handles requests in its own way. We map every database surfacing your name at the start and prepare the right request for each.

A published court opinion is part of the public legal record, so the strongest outcomes are usually removal with a court order, name redaction, restriction from search indexing, or de-indexing from Google. We tell you which outcome fits your specific record before you commit to anything.

Yes, in the right circumstances. The most reliable route is the court itself: an order replacing your name with initials or a pseudonym, which an attorney can request. With that order, databases have a clear basis to anonymize their copy. We assess whether redaction, a search engine block or removal is the right thing to ask for.

In specific cases, yes. Google removes results that expose certain personal information, such as a home address, phone number, government ID number or bank account number, and it refreshes results for pages that have changed or gone. We tell you whether your URL fits one of Google's policies before any request is made.

A private database that copied the opinion earlier does not learn of a sealing order on its own, but it is far more willing to act when it is shown the order. The order has to identify the case so it can be matched to the page, and we check it against the citation before sending it.