Your client was vindicated.
Google wasn't in the room.

It means the complete legal picture – including the nature of the original allegations, the proceedings, and precisely what the outcome document says. A Record of Truth does not overstate the significance of a result. If a case was dismissed on procedural grounds, the Record will reflect that accurately. If allegations were withdrawn rather than contested and defeated, the Record will say so. The documentation determines the narrative, not the other way around.

Nothing is included that the legal evidence does not directly support. The goal is not to replace one incomplete account with another – it is to ensure that a complete and verified account exists and ranks alongside the original coverage. That completeness is also the reason it ranks: Search engines and AI systems assess evidentiary quality. A document grounded in primary legal sources is treated differently from advocacy content, however well-written.

A Record of Truth is a purpose-built, search-optimized publication that presents a verified legal outcome – a dismissal, acquittal, withdrawal of allegations or regulatory finding in the client’s favor – in a format that search engines and AI systems can find, read and rank with authority.

It is built entirely from verified legal documentation: Court orders, dismissal notices, regulatory findings, correspondence from opposing counsel. It presents the complete legal narrative – the allegation, the proceedings, and the outcome – structured for maximum visibility alongside the original coverage. It is not a press release. It is not a profile piece. It is an evidential publication that places the outcome into the same search environment as the allegation – permanently and verifiably.

This is the most common objection, and it deserves a precise answer. The instinct to say nothing more is entirely human – and in most cases, it is a strategic error. The digital record does not behave like human memory. It does not fade with time. High-authority articles published four, five or eight years ago do not gradually disappear – they compound. Every year in which a vindication goes undocumented is a year in which the imbalance widens further.

A well-constructed vindication document does not amplify the allegation. It frames it. Amplification gives a claim greater reach and prominence. Framing places it within its proper context – which includes the most important fact: That it was dismissed. Furthermore, if the original coverage already ranks prominently for the client’s name, anyone searching for them is already finding it. A Record of Truth does not introduce the allegation to new audiences. It introduces the resolution. The question your client is really asking is whether they want the search landscape to define them indefinitely. The answer to that question is the argument for acting.

Because the authority of a Record of Truth derives entirely from the legal documentation that underpins it. A court order, a dismissal notice, a regulatory finding – these are what give the publication its evidentiary weight and the credibility that search engines assess when determining how to rank it alongside entrenched negative coverage.

No PR agency can produce those documents. No reputation management platform generates them. They exist in the case file, and only the lawyers who ran the matter hold them in a form that can be immediately deployed. The distinction between a PR campaign that pushes positive content and a Record of Truth built on official legal records is precisely the distinction lawyers are trained to understand.

Partner firms are invoiced at 20% below the standard client price for every case referred. There is no volume commitment and no annual fee. The discount applies from the first case referred and to all subsequent cases regardless of volume.

The professional rate reduces what the firm pays us. How the firm structures its own billing arrangements with the client is entirely a matter for the firm and is not something we seek to influence or direct. Whether the service is presented as a disbursement passed on at cost, incorporated into the firm’s own fee arrangement, or handled in any other way the firm considers appropriate is for the firm to determine in line with its own professional obligations. We simply invoice at the partner rate. We are happy to discuss volume arrangements for firms with ongoing caseloads in relevant practice areas.

All case information, documentation and correspondence is handled under strict confidentiality. We do not publish client names without express permission, share case details with third parties, or reference engagements publicly in any form. We are accustomed to working within legal information governance frameworks where confidentiality is paramount.

We work through the referring firm as the primary point of contact unless the firm explicitly requests direct client communication. All content is reviewed and approved by the firm and the client before publication. We will operate within any specific confidentiality agreement the firm requires and will execute a non-disclosure agreement as standard if the firm prefers.

This is a reasonable concern to raise on behalf of a client, and it is worth addressing directly: The concern does not reflect how the architecture actually functions.

Each Record of Truth is published as a standalone subdomain. A visitor who lands on one Record has no pathway to any other – there is no directory, no index of subjects, no “other cases on this domain” section. The domain functions as infrastructure, not as a browsable collection. No one searches for the parent domain and browses. They search for a name and land on that name’s Record.

The analogy to legal databases is instructive. PACER, Westlaw and every major records system index every case – from minor contractual disputes to the most serious criminal proceedings – on the same platform. No attorney hesitates to file in PACER because a violent offender’s case is also there. The database is infrastructure. The case is the record.

Domain authority is also a structural advantage, not a liability. A subdomain of an established, indexed domain inherits authority signals that a brand-new standalone site takes months to accumulate – which is a significant factor in why Records rank as quickly as they do.

For clients where complete domain independence is a firm requirement regardless, custom domain arrangements can be discussed on a case-by-case basis.

Yes – and in many respects, older cases are the strongest candidates. The search problem does not improve with time; it compounds. A case that concluded two or three years ago will have allowed the original coverage to become more deeply entrenched in rankings, which means the asymmetry between allegation coverage and outcome coverage will have widened considerably.

Provided the legal outcome documents are available, we can proceed regardless of when the matter concluded. Many of the most impactful engagements have involved cases where the client had been living with the search problem for years, having assumed – incorrectly – that there was nothing to be done about it.

Any practice area that routinely produces a legal outcome following an allegation that attracted media attention, online coverage or public comment. In practice, the strongest cases arise from defamation and media law, professional discipline and regulatory defense, serious criminal defense for individuals of public profile, commercial litigation involving reputational allegations, senior employment disputes, and financial services regulatory proceedings.

The key preconditions are: A clear legal outcome in the client’s favor, and existing search coverage that does not reflect that outcome. The eligibility tool will determine whether a specific case qualifies within seconds.

No. A Record of Truth does not remove, alter or suppress existing publications. It creates a new, authoritative document that ranks alongside them, ensuring that anyone who searches the client’s name encounters the complete picture – both the allegation and the outcome – rather than the allegation alone.

This approach is not only more legally defensible than attempted suppression; it is more durable. A removal can be reversed, appealed, or circumvented. A well-ranked publication that accurately documents a legal outcome cannot be undone by the original publisher. In some cases, the existence of a Record of Truth has prompted publishers to update their original articles voluntarily, but this is not something FamoRenovo controls or guarantees.

Simply click Login at the top of the page and create an account. We will send a verification email immediately. Once you are signed in, you can specify that you are a law firm and apply for the professional rate – we aim to approve all such requests within 24 hours.

Approval is not required before you can get a quote. To request pricing for a specific client, you will first need to run their name through the eligibility check tool on this page – either before or after creating your account. Once a subject has been checked, you can proceed directly to a quote from within your account.