We’re facing a litigation-related reputation attack. Can you help?

Yes, litigation-adjacent reputation work is one of our most common engagement types, and the pattern is recognizable: a company or individual is named in a matter that generates public coverage, counsel is appropriately restrictive on public statements, and the search results and AI engines keep absorbing the contested version of events while the lawful process plays out.

The constraint that defines this work is that counsel is running point. We coordinate every public-facing decision, communications, content, timing, with your legal team, and we concentrate the work on the layers that move the record without requiring any public statement about the matter itself.

What we do while the matter is active

• Strengthen the entity. We build and reinforce the connected web of references, profiles, structured data, authoritative mentions, that identifies you to Google and the AI engines, so the platforms attach the right facts to the right entity rather than defaulting to the contested coverage.
• Publish authoritative content on owned properties. Content about the broader operating record, on properties you control, gives the search and AI engines accurate, well-sourced material to draw on, without commenting on the litigation.
• Request source-level corrections on factual errors. Where coverage contains documented factual mistakes, we pursue corrections through the outlets’ own published corrections processes, properly sourced, not spin, and not touching the merits of the case.
• Handle Wikipedia the compliant way. Any Wikipedia work is done under disclosed conflict-of-interest rules: we propose changes on the article’s Talk page via edit requests for independent editors to review, with the paid relationship disclosed, rather than editing the article directly.
• Monitor continuously. IMPACT™ tracks the Google results and AIQ tracks the eight major AI engines: ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, Perplexity, Grok, Claude, Google AI Overviews, and Google AI Mode, so shifts in the narrative surface quickly and counsel always sees which version of the story is winning.

The infrastructure built during the matter is what stakeholders see for years afterward, which is why getting it right during the active period matters disproportionately.