— Case study · Legal
A capable attorney was losing prospective clients to a damaging article and a complaint page ranking at the top of their name. Here's how we turned their search results around in 120 days.
Client
Problem
Services used
Timeline
Headline result
— The challenge
The attorney — an experienced practitioner with a strong track record — came to us because the first thing prospective clients saw when they searched their name was a negative article ranking in position 1, alongside a complaint-site page at position 4. For a profession where trust and credibility are everything, this was doing real damage.
With 98% of people reading reviews and researching attorneys online, and more than half unwilling to even consider a lawyer whose results raise doubts, the attorney was losing prospective clients before the first phone call.
— The diagnosis
The negative article sat on a [mid / high]-authority site — unlikely to be removable, but movable through suppression.
The complaint-site page was an unverified accusation that could be outranked, and possibly de-indexed.
The attorney’s Avvo and Martindale profiles were incomplete and barely ranking, ceding page 1 to the negatives.
Only [2] positive, owned results existed for their name — not enough to control the first page.
The article couldn't simply be deleted, so suppression was the realistic path. We told the attorney that upfront, along with a realistic timeline — no false promises of removal.
— The approach
Built and ranked authoritative, owned assets — a professional site, optimized directory profiles, and credible content — to displace the article and complaint page.
Challenged the complaint-site page on the grounds available and pursued de-indexing of the unverified content.
Optimized Avvo, Martindale, and LinkedIn; published authoritative content positioning the attorney as a credible, established practitioner.
Set up monitoring so any new negative content is caught and addressed before it can climb.
— The results
| Metric | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Negative article for their name | Page 1, pos. 1 | Page 3 |
| Complaint-site page | Page 1, pos. 4 | Page 4 |
| Avvo / Martindale profile | Incomplete, low visibility | Optimized, ranking |
| Positive owned results on page 1 | 2 | 7 |
| New client inquiries | Baseline | +40% |
Note: replace every [bracketed] figure with your real, anonymized results. Accurate numbers build trust; invented ones destroy it.
— Attorney, name withheld
We didn’t promise to delete a legitimate article — that would have been dishonest. Instead, we were straight about what was removable and what had to be suppressed, then executed methodically with white-hat methods. For attorneys, whose reputation is inseparable from trust and ethics, working with a firm that operates the same way matters.
We never disclose client identities. The details here are real but presented without identifying information, because the same discretion we extend to this attorney is what we’ll extend to you. A firm that publicizes its clients is a firm that would one day publicize you.
FINAL CALL TO ACTION
A free, confidential audit — we’ll show you exactly what shows up for your name, and what we can do about it.
