Reputation Management for Lawyers

You can, but rules of professional conduct in most states restrict what you can disclose about a client matter publicly, even to correct a false claim. A response that tries to correct the record without confirming client details often reads as evasive, which can do more harm than saying nothing. This is why removal, not response, is the more effective approach for attorneys specifically.

No. We build removal cases around what's documentable about the review itself, non-client origin, fabricated claims, coordinated posting, without confirming or discussing whether the reviewer was ever your client. Your ethical obligations under your state's rules of professional conduct are never put at risk.

Yes, this is one of the most common and most winnable grounds we work with. Opposing parties, competitors, and disgruntled non-clients frequently post reviews with no verified attorney-client relationship, and most platforms explicitly prohibit this.

A specific, verifiable false statement of fact, such as a fabricated outcome or a claim that a filing was never made, is different from a negative opinion about your communication style or fees. Opinions are protected. Demonstrably false factual claims generally are not, and are actionable under most platform policies.

Yes. Most attorneys and firms have a presence on three or more platforms simultaneously (Avvo, Martindale-Hubbell, Google, and state bar directories), and a damaging review is often cross-posted or referenced across more than one. We map your full footprint at intake.

Yes. In 2026, AI Overviews, ChatGPT, and Perplexity increasingly summarize an attorney's review profile directly in response to a prospective client's question, often before they ever open Avvo or Google. Removing the source review is the only way to stop that content from being cited in an AI-generated answer about you.

There's no upfront fee. You pay only after a specific review is confirmed removed. Your free case review includes an honest assessment of which of your reviews actually qualify before you commit to anything.

Most legal directory platforms resolve properly documented policy cases within 30 days or less. Complex cases involving legal escalation can take longer. We give you a specific timeline for your case during the free review.

You can create real risk. ABA Formal Opinion 496 (2021) makes clear that the 'self-defense' exception in Model Rule 1.6(b)(5) does NOT authorize a lawyer to reveal confidential client information in response to a negative online review, an informal complaint isn't a 'proceeding.' The ABA's own suggested safe response is essentially: "Professional obligations do not allow me to respond as I would wish." That narrow room to respond is exactly why removal of a policy-violating review, rather than a public reply, is usually the safer and more effective path for attorneys. (General information, confirm your own state's rules.)

Generally yes, soliciting honest reviews from actual clients is permitted in most jurisdictions, but with real limits: you can't offer something of value in exchange (which can implicate both bar rules and the FTC), you can't script or fabricate them, and you must respect client confidentiality in how you ask. Rules vary by state, so this is general information, not legal advice. We set up compliant post-matter review flows as part of the build track, designed around exactly these constraints.

Yes, and compliantly is the only way we do it. We set up post-matter request flows that ask real, satisfied clients for a review at the natural close of a matter, prioritized toward Google and Avvo, with client confidentiality respected in how the ask is made. Everything stays inside bar advertising rules: ABA Model Rule 7.1 prohibits false or misleading statements, and most jurisdictions prohibit offering anything of value for a review. What we never do: buy reviews, incentivize them, write or post them ourselves, or fabricate anything.

Yes. We claim and fully complete your profiles on Avvo, Justia, Martindale-Hubbell, FindLaw, and your state bar listing. Complete profiles do two jobs at once: they rank for your name, and they occupy search results that would otherwise be filled by review sites, complaint pages, or competitors. Alongside the profiles, we develop practice-area content and commentary that build your individual authority over time.

Generally no, Avvo builds attorney profiles from public licensing data and does not let attorneys delete them on request, which surprises many lawyers. What you can do is address individual reviews that violate Avvo's guidelines (non-client, defamatory, or conflict-of-interest reviews) and improve the profile's accuracy. When you dispute a review, Avvo's process contacts the reviewer to confirm a client relationship and can hide the review during review. We handle that documentation and submission for you.

We need to be precise here. An official state bar disciplinary record is a public record, and we will never misrepresent, alter, or try to hide one, that is both impossible through legitimate channels and something we won't do. What frequently happens, though, is that third-party aggregators, complaint sites, or old posts amplify a matter that was dismissed, resolved, or is minor, and push it above the accurate, current record. Where that content violates a platform's policy we address it, and either way we build complete, authoritative profiles and content so the full, current picture of your practice is what ranks, rather than a single out-of-date item. On a free review we'll tell you honestly which parts are realistically improvable and which are not.

Usually not by takedown, and we won't promise otherwise. Accurate news reporting and genuine commentary are lawful and generally cannot be removed, and no reputable firm should tell you it can delete a real news story. Reviews and news items are different problems: a policy-violating review can often be removed at the source, while a news article is addressed by building and strengthening authoritative content (complete directory profiles, practice-area writing, and other accurate pages) so it, not the article, is what prospective clients and AI answers surface first. We're candid on the free review about what suppression can and cannot achieve for your specific situation.