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

The listing is taken down at the source. Realistic when a court sealing or expungement order, minor status, identity theft, or a documented safety risk applies. This is the strongest outcome and the one we pursue first whenever the grounds support it.

The opinion stays as precedent, but your name is redacted or anonymized so the page no longer surfaces in a search for you. When an opinion cannot be deleted, this is frequently the outcome that actually solves the reputation problem.

If the source declines removal but the record is outdated, sealed, or expunged, the specific URL can sometimes be delisted from Google and Bing for your name. The page still exists, but it stops appearing when someone searches you.

In 2026, a Case.Law record does not need to be clicked to cause damage. AI tools surface case details as established fact in the first response window. The person doing the search never needs to visit the original record.

Case.Law accepts removal and restriction requests for records that meet qualifying grounds, including sealed or expunged records, dismissed charges, records involving minors, and records creating safety risks. Case.Law does not offer a self-service portal, so requests must be submitted through the correct direct channel with proper documentation. Reputation Resolutions handles this process from intake through confirmation.

Case.Law does not have a public-facing removal form. Removal requests must be submitted directly, accompanied by documentation supporting your specific qualifying ground. The most common reason requests fail is not that the case does not qualify, but that the submission does not frame the qualifying argument in the language Case.Law's review team accepts. Reputation Resolutions prepares and files these requests professionally.

Case.Law recognizes the following qualifying grounds: court-issued sealing or expungement orders, dismissed charges, records involving minors, records resulting from identity theft or mistaken identity, records creating a credible safety or harassment risk, and materially inaccurate case data. Reputation Resolutions evaluates every case against these grounds before accepting an engagement.

Case.Law typically processes requests within 30 days. More complex cases or those requiring supplemental documentation can extend the timeline. Reputation Resolutions manages all follow-up communication throughout the review window. We provide status updates at each stage.

A denied request requires a materially different argument or new documentation to re-appeal effectively. Re-submitting the same request after a denial typically results in dismissal. Reputation Resolutions reviews the denial response and assesses whether re-appeal is viable before recommending a path forward. If it is, we rebuild the submission. If it is not, we tell you honestly.

Not automatically. Platform removal stops Case.Law from surfacing the record, but the Google-cached URL may remain visible in search results for days to weeks. Reputation Resolutions submits a formal Google outdated content removal request for every confirmed Case.Law removal at no additional charge, so the search footprint is cleared as well as the platform listing.

Almost certainly not. Case.Law sources its data from the RECAP Archive, which also feeds CourtListener, Justia, Trellis Law, and PacerMonitor. The same federal case record can appear on all five platforms simultaneously. Reputation Resolutions maps every platform surfacing your record at the start of every engagement so the full footprint is addressed.

The RECAP Archive is a free, open-source database of federal court documents submitted by attorneys using the PACER system. Case.Law draws on this archive and indexes case records for public access. Because the source data sits in RECAP and is mirrored across multiple platforms, comprehensive removal requires addressing both Case.Law and the other sites drawing from the same archive. Reputation Resolutions maps this entire ecosystem at intake.

Yes. In 2026, AI tools including ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, Perplexity, and Gemini actively pull from high-authority indexed sources. Case.Law's domain authority is sufficient for AI systems to surface case records in name-search responses without the user ever clicking a link. Removing the record from Case.Law and clearing the Google-indexed URL eliminates it from the source data these AI tools draw from.

The core difference is documentation framing. Case.Law's review team uses specific internal criteria that do not map directly to the plain language of the published policy. Self-submitted requests frequently fail not because the case does not qualify, but because the qualifying argument is not stated in the terms that trigger approval. Reputation Resolutions has 13 years of pattern data from 5,000+ clients that tells us what language, documentation structure, and evidentiary framing succeeds in practice.

Yes. Third-party background check providers and professional licensing boards regularly query public court databases that include Case.Law data. A record visible on Case.Law can surface in commercial background checks even if the case was dismissed or resolved favorably. Reputation Resolutions advises on the full exposure picture during your free initial consultation.

Yes. CourtListener and Justia both source from the RECAP Archive and have their own removal and restriction processes. Reputation Resolutions addresses all RECAP-derived platforms as part of a comprehensive engagement. The same qualifying grounds that apply to Case.Law generally apply across these platforms, though each has its own submission process.

Our model is strictly pay-for-results. There is no upfront retainer and no fee until removal is confirmed. Pricing depends on the number of records, the complexity of the qualifying argument, and the number of related platforms surfacing the same record. Schedule a free consultation and we will give you specific pricing based on your situation.

Reputation Resolutions includes re-removal warranty coverage for confirmed removals. If the same record reappears on Case.Law within the warranty window, we work to remove it again at no additional charge. We also monitor related aggregator sites that may pull from the RECAP Archive to catch re-emergence across the ecosystem.

Yes. Case.Law indexes federal district court and appellate court records. Reputation Resolutions handles federal record cases across all qualifying grounds. State court records, if indexed by Case.Law, are addressed under the same engagement structure. Your free consultation will include a clear assessment of which records qualify and under what grounds.

Yes. Casetext, CaseMine, Leagle, and vLex are published-opinion research databases that index the full text of court opinions, which is a different category from docket aggregators like PacerMonitor. Each has its own process. Casetext reviews documented requests through its support channel, CaseMine's editorial team evaluates requests case by case, and Leagle generally requires a court sealing or redaction order before it will act at all. Reputation Resolutions maps every database surfacing your name at intake and prepares the correct submission for each. The same qualifying grounds generally apply, but the evidence and submission process each platform expects are not identical.

A published court opinion is not only a record of your case, it is legal precedent that other courts and attorneys cite. The opinion text, including the parties named in the caption, is treated as part of the public legal record and is frequently considered public domain. That is why a database will rarely delete an unsealed opinion outright. The realistic outcomes are usually name redaction, restriction from search indexing, or de-indexing from Google, rather than deletion of the opinion itself. Reputation Resolutions tells you which outcome is realistic for your specific record before you commit to anything.

Often, yes. When an opinion is precedential and cannot be deleted, the more realistic remedy is redaction or anonymization of your name, so the opinion no longer surfaces in a search for you. Some databases will redact identifying details on a documented request, and a court redaction or sealing order strengthens that argument considerably. Reputation Resolutions assesses whether redaction, restriction, or full removal is the right target for your record and prepares the submission accordingly, rather than filing a deletion request that was never going to succeed.

Sometimes. If the source database declines removal but the record is factually outdated, sealed, or expunged, there may still be a path to delist the specific URL from Google and Bing results for your name, separate from any action by the database itself. This does not delete the underlying page, but it can stop the record from appearing when someone searches your name. Reputation Resolutions evaluates de-indexing as a distinct option whenever direct removal at the source is not available.

A sealing or expungement order changes the legal status of the underlying record, and once you provide it, publishers of secondary court content have a much stronger basis to restrict or remove the corresponding online listing. The order must reference the specific case so the database can match it to the page in question. A common reason self-filed requests stall is that the expungement paperwork does not cite the exact case number the database indexed. Reputation Resolutions cross-references the order to the indexed record before filing, so the request is not rejected on a technicality.