Remove Court Records. Only Pay After Removal.

Not sure if your record qualifies for removal?

We assess every URL individually against source removal policies and Google de-indexing criteria, and give you an honest written answer before any commitment.

There are two practical paths, and we pursue both. The first is source removal: contacting the website that actually hosts the record, such as Justia, UniCourt, CourtListener, Casetext, CaseMine, Leagle, Law360, DocketBird, Docket Alarm, or FindLaw, through the correct channel with formal documentation, so the page comes down at the source. The second is de-indexing, where we ask Google to stop showing a specific URL in search results even when the source page stays live.

Dismissed, expunged, sealed, and inaccurate records are the strongest cases. Some lawfully published records on official government sites cannot be deleted at the source, so the realistic outcome there is de-indexing or suppression rather than deletion. We assess every URL and tell you honestly which outcome applies before you commit to anything.

Yes, in certain cases. This is called de-indexing. We submit a request directly to Google to stop showing a specific URL in search results, which can succeed even when the hosting site will not remove the underlying page. De-indexing is most viable when the record qualifies under Google's personal information removal policies, when you hold a sealing or expungement order, or when the content contains inaccurate or exploitative information.

It is important to be clear about the tradeoff: de-indexing removes the page from Google results for the targeted queries, but the record still exists at the source and can surface elsewhere. Whenever possible we pursue full source removal first and treat de-indexing as the fallback, not the finish line. We tell you which path is realistic for each URL before any commitment.

In many cases, yes, directly and permanently. When the website hosting the record agrees to remove it, Google's index updates and the record disappears from search results. This is most achievable when records live on third-party aggregators like Justia or UniCourt rather than official government sites, and when the case was dismissed, expunged, or contains inaccurate information. When source removal is not possible, we pursue de-indexing directly through Google, which instructs Google to stop showing the specific URL even while the source page remains live.

We pursue two coordinated paths for every case. Source removal means contacting the hosting website through the correct channel, with formal requests, documented case outcomes, or escalation through legal contacts, and getting the record deleted at the source. De-indexing means submitting directly to Google to stop showing a specific URL in search results, which is possible in certain cases even when the source site will not remove the record. Most firms attempt only one of these paths. We assess both for every URL involved in your case.

Yes. That is the core of what we do. We contact each hosting site through the appropriate channel, whether standard removal requests, documented case outcomes, or escalation through legal or privacy contacts. We know the policies and internal contacts for the major court record aggregators: Justia, UniCourt, CourtListener, Leagle, PacerMonitor, Docketbird, Plainsite, and others. This is not a form submission. It is a managed outreach process informed by 13 years of working with these specific platforms.

Dismissed charges, non-conviction records, civil lawsuits regardless of outcome, family law cases, small claims matters, old arrests that never resulted in charges, expunged or sealed records still circulating on third-party sites, and records containing factually inaccurate information are all scenarios we work with regularly. Records on official federal or state court websites present higher barriers to source removal, though Google de-indexing may still apply.

If source removal is not achievable for a given URL, we tell you that clearly, before you pay anything. In those cases, we assess whether de-indexing directly through Google is possible based on the record's content, any legal orders you hold, or eligibility under Google's personal information removal policies. We provide an honest assessment of what is realistic and an itemized quote before any commitment.

Accuracy and removability are separate questions. A record can be factually accurate and still be removable, if it lives on a third-party aggregator with a removal policy, if the case was dismissed or expunged, or if the hosting site will respond to a properly documented request. Many records that reflect real legal events still come down when approached through the right channel with the right documentation. Accuracy alone does not determine whether removal is possible.

Legal databases like Justia, CourtListener, and UniCourt carry high domain authority. Google treats them as trusted sources based on years of links and engagement. Court records are also highly name-specific, containing your full legal name repeatedly throughout the document, which makes them extremely relevant to searches for you. When combined with the fact that people who find a court record tend to click it, these factors reinforce the record's ranking over time.

Increasingly, yes. AI assistants used for research can surface court records and legal history when asked about a person or company, even when those records do not appear prominently in traditional Google results. AI systems weight authoritative sources heavily, and legal databases are exactly that. Our team builds content strategies with AI search visibility in mind, establishing accurate, authoritative information that AI systems are more likely to surface when someone asks about you.

It is a real risk. Some legal aggregators do periodic bulk data pulls from PACER or state court systems, which can reintroduce previously removed records. Our team monitors your search profile after campaigns conclude and responds immediately if a record resurfaces. This is why ongoing monitoring has practical value as protection against reemergence, not just as a standard add-on.

Cost depends on how many URLs are involved, which sites are hosting the record, and the scope of work required. We do not publish flat rates because every case is different. For direct removal attempts, we work on a performance basis, no fee if the removal does not succeed. For de-indexing campaigns, we provide an itemized quote after the assessment. The free consultation is where we give you concrete numbers.

Over-promising and underdelivering is a documented pattern in the ORM industry. Here is what distinguishes Reputation Resolutions: we give you a written assessment of every URL before you make any commitment. For direct removal, you pay only after the record is confirmed gone. You receive specific updates on which sites have been contacted, what responses came back, and where the de-indexing process stands, not vague progress reports. We have been doing this since 2012 and hold an A+ BBB rating with independently verified client results.

Yes. Business litigation, lawsuits, regulatory actions, judgments, and class actions can be just as damaging to a company's search profile as personal records are to an individual's. We work with businesses from small professional firms to mid-market companies managing search results tied to past legal disputes. The assessment and removal process is the same: every URL evaluated individually, every viable path pursued.

For direct source removal: once a site agrees to remove the record, the source page comes down within days to a few weeks. Google de-indexing after that typically takes two to six weeks, though we submit manual requests to accelerate it. Straightforward cases have resolved within 30 to 45 days total. For cases requiring Google de-indexing directly, timelines depend on the documentation involved and Google's review process. We give specific timeline estimates during the consultation.

Expungement updates the court's own records. It does not update third-party websites that copied that data years ago. Legal aggregators have no automatic obligation to monitor for expungements and delete records accordingly. In many cases, expunged records continue circulating on Justia, UniCourt, and similar sites indefinitely unless someone actively contacts each platform with documentation and a formal removal request. If you have an expungement order, we use it as formal documentation in removal requests, which significantly improves compliance rates.

Yes, and it is a step most people miss. Court data does not stay on legal aggregators. People-search and background-check sites such as Spokeo, BeenVerified, TruthFinder, Intelius, InstantCheckmate, PeopleFinders, Radaris, and MyLife routinely scrape and republish arrest and case data, which creates a second layer of listings that surface for your name alongside the original legal databases.

Most of these sites operate opt-out processes rather than formal legal review, so the pathway is different from a legal aggregator. We identify every people-search and data-broker copy tied to your record and pursue opt-out or suppression on each one as part of the campaign. Be aware of the honest caveat: data brokers pull fresh feeds on a cycle, so a listing can repopulate months later. That is exactly why post-campaign monitoring matters, and why we watch for re-listings and address them rather than treating a single opt-out as permanent.

They are different legal outcomes and they carry different weight in a removal request. Sealing restricts public access to a record while the record still legally exists. Expungement goes further and treats the record as if it never occurred. Both are issued by a court, and both are strong documentation when we contact a hosting site.

What matters for online removal is that neither one automatically reaches third-party websites. A sealing or expungement order changes the court's file, not a private company's database. The order becomes powerful only when someone submits it, through the correct channel, to each site still displaying the record. That submission is the work we handle, and a court order of either kind materially improves the odds that a site complies.

Generally yes on both counts, and we tell you where your specific records fall during the assessment. Records hosted on official federal or state court websites, including PACER-derived federal dockets, are the hardest to remove at the source because the publishing body is a government entity with no obligation to take content down. Records that live on third-party aggregators are more workable because those companies maintain removal and opt-out policies.

Case type also shifts the difficulty. Dismissed charges, non-convictions, and expunged or sealed matters are the strongest candidates. Active or ongoing public cases are the weakest. Civil and criminal records both come down regularly when they sit on a third-party site with a removal policy, so the hosting platform usually matters more than the civil-versus-criminal label. Where source removal is not realistic, Google de-indexing may still apply, and we assess that URL by URL.

Sometimes, and we will tell you honestly when the do-it-yourself path is the right call. If you hold a sealing or expungement order and the record sits on one cooperative site, you can often submit the order through that site's removal form yourself at no cost. Google also offers a personal information removal request and an outdated-content tool you can use directly.

Where self-service breaks down is scale and escalation. Court data is usually mirrored across many platforms at once, each with its own channel, documentation standard, and internal contact, and a single wrong submission can trigger a denial that is harder to reverse on a second attempt. What we add is knowing the correct channel for each platform, pursuing source removal and de-indexing in parallel, and only charging for direct removal after it is confirmed. If your situation is genuinely a one-site, one-form fix, we will say so.