— Case study · Legal

How we cleared an attorney's first page — and rebuilt client confidence.

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

Attorney / law firm partner — name withheld

Problem

Negative article + complaint page on page 1

Services used

Suppression · Removal · Personal branding

Timeline

120 days

Headline result

Negatives off page 1, 7 owned results ranking

— The challenge

The problem

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.

The attorney was being judged by content that didn't reflect their actual competence or ethics.

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

What our free audit found

01

A movable negative article

The article sat on a mid-to-high-authority site — unlikely to be removable, but movable through suppression.

02

An unverified complaint page

The complaint-site page was an unverified accusation that could be outranked, and possibly de-indexed.

03

Thin directory profiles

Avvo and Martindale profiles were incomplete and barely ranking, ceding page 1 to the negatives.

04

Too few owned assets

Only 2 positive, owned results existed for their name — not enough to control the first page.

Our Honest Assessment:

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

What we did

I

Suppressed the negatives

Built and ranked authoritative, owned assets — a professional site, optimized directory profiles, and credible content — to displace the article and complaint page.

II

Pursued removal where possible

Challenged the complaint-site page on the grounds available and pursued de-indexing of the unverified content.

III

Rebuilt the professional presence

Optimized Avvo, Martindale, and LinkedIn; published authoritative content positioning the attorney as a credible, established practitioner.

IV

Protected it

Set up monitoring so any new negative content is caught and addressed before it can climb.

— The results

90 days, measured

Prospective clients now find the real me first — my experience and my record, not an out-of-context article. The difference in inquiries has been significant.

— Attorney, name withheld

The takeaway

Why this worked

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.

Confidentiality

Why this is anonymized

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.

— Facing something similar?

See exactly what shows up when clients search your name.

A free, confidential audit — we’ll show you exactly what shows up for your name, and what we can do about it.