How do you handle negative search results from malpractice lawsuits?

Malpractice-related search results are durable and emotionally weighted, so the work is context and patience rather than removal, which is rarely available. The starting point is honest: a legitimate, factual record will not come down, and attempting to suppress it tends to backfire. What works is building current, authoritative content (accurate provider credentials, current practice information, outcomes where appropriate) so that Google and the AI engines have fresh, substantive material to weight alongside an old case. Where coverage contains factual errors, we pursue source-level corrections with the outlets, since correcting the source is more durable than burying it. Refreshed entity signals keep the canonical facts current. We monitor AI engine answers with AIQ, because models sometimes lead with a years-old settled case as if it were the defining fact about a provider. Older, resolved cases generally respond to a steady accumulation of accurate current content over time, and that timeline is something we set expectations on honestly.