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.

A lawsuit or court case appears online in two places: the official court record and the legal-research and aggregator sites that republish it, such as Justia, UniCourt, and FindLaw. The official court record is public and generally stays, unless a court seals or expunges it, which is a legal process handled through an attorney. The republishing sites can often be asked to remove, redact or block a case from search engines, especially if it was dismissed, sealed, or contains inaccurate information, and Google can be asked to de-index specific URLs that meet its policies so the case stops appearing for your name. We assess which of those routes applies to your case for free, and you pay only after removal is confirmed.

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. 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 sending a documented request to the website that republished the record, through that site's own process, so the page is removed, redacted or blocked from search engines. De-indexing means asking Google to stop showing a specific URL, which is possible in certain cases even when the source site will not act, for example where the page exposes personal information covered by Google's policies or where you hold a sealing or expungement order. We assess both for every URL involved in your case, and we tell you which is realistic before you commit.

Yes. That is the core of what we do. With your authorization, we send each hosting site a documented request through its own process: UniCourt's redaction request, Trellis's redaction form, CourtListener's removal policy, DocketBird's free removal request, or direct outreach to sites such as PacerMonitor that publish no removal form. We do not contact the court, the judge or the other parties, and we do not ask a court to change its record.

The strongest cases are records that have been sealed or expunged by court order but still circulate on third-party sites, dismissed charges and non-convictions, old arrests that never led to charges, family law cases that expose children or personal details, and listings that are factually wrong or out of date. Civil lawsuits and small claims matters are assessed case by case, because several sites treat a plain dismissal as discretionary. What generally does not qualify is an accurate record of an open case, or of a judgment or conviction with no court order, and records on official federal or state court websites cannot be removed at the source, though Google de-indexing may still apply in narrow cases.

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 and people-search sites pull fresh data from PACER or state court systems on a cycle, which can reintroduce a record that was removed, and a different site can pick up the same case later. We tell you this upfront and map the related sites at the start so fewer copies are left behind. If a record we removed comes back, tell us and we will look at it.

Cost depends on how many URLs are involved and which sites are hosting the record. We do not publish flat rates because every case is different. Removal work is results-based: there is no fee unless the record comes down or the URL is confirmed out of Google. Suppression of records that cannot be removed is separate work, scoped and priced in writing, and it is not billed on results. The free consultation is where we give you concrete numbers.

Over-promising is a common complaint in this industry, so here is what we commit to. We give you a written assessment of every URL before you make any commitment, including the ones we do not think can be removed. For direct removal, you pay only after the record is confirmed gone. You receive specific updates on which sites have been contacted and what responses came back, not vague progress reports. We have been doing this since 2013 and hold an A+ BBB rating.

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.

It depends on the site, and we do not promise a timeline. Each site decides on its own schedule: UniCourt says it typically decides a redaction request within 30 days, while sites with no published process can take longer. After a source page is removed or blocked, Google has to recrawl it before the result drops out, which we request but do not control. We give you a realistic expectation for each URL 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 contacts each platform with the order and a formal removal request. If you have an expungement order, we use it as formal documentation in removal requests, and it is the strongest basis a request can have.

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 final.

They are different legal outcomes and they carry different weight in a removal request. Sealing generally restricts public access to a record while the record still exists. Expungement generally goes further, and in many states the record is destroyed or treated as if the matter never occurred. The exact effect depends on the state. Both are issued by a court, through a legal process handled by an attorney.

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 useful online 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 is the strongest documentation a request can carry.

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 site, you can often submit the order yourself at no cost: UniCourt's redaction request and Trellis's redaction form are both free. Google also offers a personal information removal request and an outdated-content tool you can use directly.

Where self-service breaks down is scale. Court data is usually mirrored across many sites at once, each with its own process and documentation standard, and some treat an appeal decision as final. What we add is knowing the process for each site, pursuing source removal and de-indexing together, 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.