The audit found that “Testimonials” remains the most common social proof label across law firm websites, outranking “Reviews” by 32%. Across the dataset, 35% of firms publish a Testimonials nav page compared to 27% publishing a Reviews page. Google Trends data for 2025 showed the consumer search terms “lawyer reviews” and “law firm reviews” generating steady search interest throughout the year, while “lawyer testimonials” and “law firm testimonials” registered zero measurable interest for every week of the year.

The disconnect extends beyond navigation labels to URL structure. The full report on testimonials vs reviews found that 2,350 law firm domains route their social proof page through a “/testimonials/” URL path, while only 1,516 use a “/reviews/” path. Even among firms that updated their nav label to “Reviews” or “Client Reviews,” many left the underlying URL unchanged, leaving the indexed page address tied to the term consumers do not search for.

In a finding that captures the transition in motion, 563 firms in the audit publish both a “Testimonials” and a “Reviews” item in their main navigation as separate menu entries. More than half of those firms, 304 in total, point both menu items to the exact same URL.

Personal injury showed the widest gap between consumer language and on-site language, with 54.8% of personal injury firms publishing a Testimonials nav page compared to 27.6% publishing a Reviews page. Business law was the only practice area in the audit where Reviews appeared more frequently than Testimonials.

The full study, including methodology, practice area breakdowns, and a four-step migration sequence for firms changing from Testimonials to Reviews, is available on Custom Legal Marketing’s website.

Public reporting further reflects that Semeran was arrested in connection with the New Jersey proceedings and remains subject to pretrial-release and no-contact conditions while the matter remains pending. Court release-condition records associated with the proceedings state that the defendant “shall avoid all contact with an alleged victim of the offense.”

According to materials under review by counsel, the review concerns online publication and messaging activity allegedly conducted by or connected to Russ Semeran and related online sources, including activity allegedly concerning, referencing, or directed at Keary “Danny” Hayes II and other protected parties associated with the proceedings. The activity under review includes LinkedIn and X/Twitter communications, alleged impersonation or unauthorized company-page activity, alleged amplification through third-party accounts, professional-network communications, and outreach to business contacts and professional associates connected to protected parties.

The review is focused on evidence preservation, lawful review, and issues relating to online impersonation, publication activity, and professional-network communications allegedly associated with the pending proceedings. The notice is intended to facilitate preservation of potentially relevant materials and lawful review through courts, prosecutors, platforms, and other appropriate legal channels.

Materials being preserved and reviewed may include posts, reposts, replies, screenshots, archived or deleted content, URLs, profile links, account handles, professional-network communications, timestamps, and related metadata or publication records.

Individuals with relevant materials are encouraged to preserve original records wherever possible, including screenshots, archived pages, URLs, profile links, timestamps, and deleted-post evidence. Individuals should avoid altering or amplifying disputed materials where originals can instead be preserved for lawful review.

Public Record References

New Jersey Office of Homeland Security & Preparedness public notice concerning the Semeran proceedings:
https://www.njohsp.gov/Home/Components/News/News/1755/2

Additional public reporting concerning the matter:
https://nj1015.com/murphy-death-threats-arrest/

CASE INFORMATION

Mercer County, New Jersey
State of New Jersey v. Russ Semeran
Case No. I430250031

For at least a decade, the prevailing advice in search engine optimization (SEO) has been that longer content reliably outranks shorter content. While studies conducted on the internet-at-large have confirmed that, there wasn’t any reliable research particularly focused on law firms and how word count correlates with their rankings. On CLM’s blog, the company said most data “comes from broader studies of B2C affiliate content, recipe blogs, and various small-business websites. A study of recipe blog rankings is not a study of how Google ranks your law firm.”

The new study finds that while word count does have a statistically detectable relationship with where a law firm page appears on Google, the effect is significantly weaker than commonly believed and varies dramatically by practice area and geographic market.

“Word count has been treated like a settled question in law firm SEO,” said Jason Bland, Co-Founder of Custom Legal Marketing. “The advice for years has been to write longer pages, and there has been almost no industry-specific data behind that recommendation. We decided to run the numbers ourselves. What we found should change how a lot of law firms and their marketing companies approach their content strategy.”

Among the most notable findings, the median word count for top-ranking law firm pages varies by a factor of four across practice areas. Employment law pages ranking at the top of Google have a median length of 428 words. Personal injury pages in the same top position have a median length of 1,691 words. Family law, estate planning, and business law all fall at distinctly different points along the same range, indicating that a one-size-fits-all content target does not reflect how Google actually ranks legal pages.

Geography also plays a substantial role. Across the 24 metro areas studied, the median word count for ranking law firm pages varied by a factor of two. Texas markets clustered well below the overall median. Northern and coastal markets clustered higher. The study found that two firms in different parts of the country could be competing on the same keyword and ranking with pages of very different lengths.

The report also examined individual search results pages directly. When the longest law firm page in a given search result was compared against shorter competitors, it held the top position less than 30 percent of the time, only marginally better than random chance would predict.

“Content quality matters. Search intent matching matters,” Bland added. “What the study shows is that the same word count target applied to every practice area and every market doesn’t reflect what’s actually happening on Google and it doesn’t reflect improved performance.”

The complete research report, Does Word Count Matter for Google Rankings?, includes practice-area-by-practice-area breakdowns, metro-level analysis for each of the 24 cities surveyed, within-SERP competitor comparisons, and the full methodology.

Custom Legal Marketing’s AI marketing platform, Sequoia, is always running experiments and most of the discoveries become proprietary entries into the system’s knowledge base. However, this year the company has released some of their platform’s findings to the public.

The integration arrives two days after OpenAI opened its beta self-serve Ads Manager to U.S. advertisers on May 5, 2026. With this release, CLM Sequoia clients can monitor ChatGPT Ads impressions, clicks, click-through rate, spend, cost per conversion, and conversions alongside the organic AI citation data the platform already collects.

OpenAI’s expansion changes the math for legal marketers. The previous pilot required a minimum spend of $50,000 and an introduction through a holding-company agency. The ad manager launch removes the spend floor, adds cost-per-click bidding, and supports conversion tracking through a pixel and the OpenAI Conversions API.

The ChatGPT Ads won’t replace the need for ChatGPT optimization for lawyers, as the ad platform operates seperately from organic ChatGPT citations and recommendations.

“Law firms have been asking whether ChatGPT Ads would matter for case acquisition. The answer is yes, and the time to test is now,” said Jason Bland, Co-Founder and CEO of Custom Legal Marketing. “Because of what we’ve built with our Sequoia platform, we were able to push our first campaigns live less than 24 hours after OpenAI opened the platform.”

The Sequoia integration pulls live data from OpenAI and renders it next to the organic AI visibility metrics CLM AI Monitor already tracks. A firm running ChatGPT Ads can view paid impressions on the same screen as the organic citations the firm earns through SEO and content. The dashboard supports day-over-day trend analysis, campaign-level breakdowns, and conversion attribution. It also feeds the core Sequoia knowledge bank to fast track conversion optimizations on the platform.

CLM Sequoia is the proprietary platform developed by Custom Legal Marketing over the past five years.

The Ads module is included for existing Custom Legal Marketing law firms. Additional ad platform integrations are planned as more AI platforms launch advertising capabilities.

Earlier this year, Custom Legal Marketing announced that the 21-year-old company had been secretly building an AI law firm marketing platform for years. Within the platform is a research system that continuously runs experiments to train Sequoia’s knowledge base. While the majority of their findings are not shared publicly, the company has been releasing studies in recent months that challenge vanity metrics in the SEO industry.

Using its proprietary CLM Sequoia research platform, Custom Legal Marketing conducted what may be the largest empirical analysis in the legal space of Website Authority scores like Domain Authority and organic search rankings. The study captured thousands of search results across eight competitive practice areas and the 50 most populous U.S. cities, scoring each result for Moz Domain Authority and classifying sites by type: law firm, directory, or resource.

The findings were clear: among law firm websites competing against other law firms, Domain Authority showed no meaningful correlation with ranking position. Law firms with low DA scores routinely outranked firms with scores two, three, and even six times higher. The study found that the metric’s apparent predictive value was almost entirely an artifact of high-authority directories like Justia, SuperLawyers, and Yelp occupying top positions, not any relationship between DA and where individual law firms actually rank.

The study also tested DA’s predictive power through head-to-head matchups, comparing every pair of law firms competing within the same search results to determine how often the higher-DA firm actually ranked above the lower-DA firm. The results suggest that DA is barely more reliable than random chance at predicting which of two competing law firms will appear higher in Google’s results.

A companion analysis examined whether the industry’s two most widely used authority tools — Moz Domain Authority and Ahrefs Domain Rating even agree with each other when scoring the same websites. They did not. The two tools produced substantially different scores for the same legal domains, applied opposite scoring biases depending on the size of the website, and could not agree on which sites belonged in their respective top tiers. If the tools measuring “authority” cannot converge on what authority looks like, the study argues, neither score belongs on a law firm’s marketing dashboard.

The study does not suggest that Moz, Ahrefs, or similar platforms lack value. Both platforms offer extensive backlink analysis, competitive research, and link prospecting capabilities that remain useful for practitioners. While the two platforms may differ, Domain Authority and Domain Rating can help SEO teams assess the relative strength of a competitor’s or potential partner’s link portfolio. 

But focusing on a higher authority score will not improve your rankings. And a dropping authority score does not mean you’ll lose ground in your organic rankings. This means the scores are a helpful research insight but as a benchmark, they’re a vanity metric. 

The study includes practice-area-level breakdowns, quartile analysis, directory dominance data, and specific examples of low-DA law firms ranking in top positions for competitive keywords in major markets. It also offers strategic recommendations for law firms looking to evaluate their current SEO campaigns and the metrics their agencies report.

The full study, including methodology, interactive data visualizations, and a section addressing DA-focused agency pitches, is available at https://custom.legal/knowledge/website-authority-scores-and-search-rankings/.

This report is the latest in a series of proprietary research publications from the CLM Sequoia platform, which has previously examined page speed, AI-generated content, and URL structure as ranking factors in legal search. CLM Sequoia is Custom Legal Marketing’s AI-powered law firm marketing platform, purpose-built for legal marketing. It powers large-scale SERP analysis, AI visibility monitoring through its AI Monitor, competitive intelligence, and the original research program that drives both client strategy and CLM’s published industry studies.

At a moment when data liability, AI manipulation, and fraudulent advertising are reshaping the legal marketing landscape, Mohr Marketing’s initiative consolidates verified law enforcement data with proprietary AI verification tools—AI WebTracker® and Scammer Scrub—to create the industry’s only end-to-end, evidence-based acquisition pipeline.

“We’re replacing chaos with chain of custody,” said Ed Mohr, founder and president of Mohr Marketing. “Law firms shouldn’t have to choose between compliance and growth. Our platform delivers verified data, defensible sourcing, and AI-driven fraud prevention within one compliant system.”

1. The End of “Junk Leads”: A Market Reset

The personal injury advertising market in 2026 has reached an inflection point, as escalating ad costs and the rise of AI-generated “phantom claims” distort client acquisition metrics and erode trust in lead generation channels.

Mohr Marketing’s Police Report Program directly addresses this crisis by centering all outreach on verified, government-sourced evidence from police Motor Vehicle Accident (MVA) reports, ensuring that firms engage real accident victims, not fabricated digital identities.

• Verified Law Enforcement Data: Mohr Marketing leverages a strategic partnership with a law enforcement–owned agency to source Motor Vehicle Accident (MVA) data directly from official police reports.
• DPPA & Regulatory Compliance: The company’s data ingestion process is engineered to maintain strict adherence to the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) and state privacy mandates at every stage of the pipeline.
• Real-Time Incident Mapping: By accessing official records, Mohr Marketing confirms the date, time, and exact location of a motor vehicle accident before any outreach begins, virtually eliminating “phantom” claims and speculative contacts.

“Clicks and cookies aren’t clients,” Mohr added. “Real people with real cases deserve real verification.”

2. Compliance as a Strategic Advantage

Mohr Marketing’s model transforms compliance from a constraint into a competitive edge for firms navigating an increasingly complex regulatory environment.

DPPA Alignment and Certified Chain of Custody:
In full adherence with the Drivers Privacy Protection Act (18 U.S.C. § 2721) and its various state interpretations, Mohr Marketing’s sourcing eliminates legal uncertainty tied to third-party data brokers by delivering case files with verifiable “chain of custody” documentation that supports law firm audits and regulatory reviews.

Post-H.B. 2733 “Digital Barratry” Defense:
Mohr’s proprietary AI WebTracker® technology is built to meet the most rigorous state-level compliance standards, including Texas House Bill 2733, which criminalizes deceptive digital solicitation, by identifying behavioral signals that show individuals are actively seeking legal assistance so that outreach functions as administrative follow-up rather than unsolicited solicitation.

Ethically Sound Structure: Administrative Labor, Not Lead Sales
Traditional pay-per-lead models may risk fee-splitting or solicitation violations under ABA Rule 7.2 and numerous state bar opinions, whereas Mohr Marketing’s Administrative Labor Model bills firms for professional intake labor and infrastructure instead of leads or referrals, aligning with ethics guidance and providing transparent, auditable cost classification.

3. The Mohr Tech Stack: Verified Data, AI Assurance

Central to Mohr Marketing’s offering is a proprietary suite of AI and compliance tools designed to deliver measurable integrity at scale:

• AI WebTracker® — Verifies real-world accident data against digital intent patterns to validate claim authenticity before contact, helping lawyers focus on high-intent, evidence-backed motor vehicle accident prospects.
• Scammer Scrub — A real-time digital firewall that analyzes IP reputation, telecom metadata, and behavioral signals to eradicate spam, bot-driven, or deepfake leads before they ever reach a firm’s intake system.

4. Human-Centered Intake at Scale

Beyond its technology, Mohr Marketing invests in trained, human-led intake through a network of bilingual, trauma-informed specialists in secure North Carolina and New York facilities who receive extensive education in privacy management, bar compliance, and empathetic communication to ensure that every client interaction upholds both regulatory and human standards.

This hybrid model ensures that automation enhances, rather than replaces, meaningful human contact, and the company’s bilingual infrastructure has become especially valuable for firms serving rapidly expanding Hispanic communities in the U.S. Sunbelt and beyond.

5. Measurable Success in High-Regulation States

Mohr Marketing’s compliance-first approach has already shown strong, measurable performance in key markets known for legal and data privacy complexity, giving firms a blueprint for ethical scale:

• Texas: Verified accident intakes increased by 36% while maintaining complete adherence to expanded barratry definitions.
• California: Seamless integration with California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) enforcement and blackout-period restrictions without loss of outreach speed or scalability.
• New York & Florida: Real-time verification and filtering tools sharply reduced fraudulent case inquiries, enabling firms to redirect ad budgets toward verified, evidence-based engagement.

6. Compliance FAQs

Q: How does Mohr Marketing avoid solicitation issues?
A: All outreach follows an administrative notification framework tied to a publicly recorded event, with AI WebTracker® first confirming behavioral readiness signals so that firm communication is classified as responsive contact rather than unsolicited solicitation.

Q: Are blackout periods enforced?
A: Yes. Mohr Marketing’s platform automatically enforces all jurisdiction-specific blackout periods, holding data securely until outreach becomes legally permissible.

Q: Is this a lead brokerage or service contract?
A: This is a compliance-certified service engagement in which firms purchase access to Mohr’s proprietary infrastructure and administrative labor under operational expense categories, not referral fee structures.

7. Territorial Exclusivity and Enrollment for 2026

Because of Mohr Marketing’s exclusive law enforcement partnerships, participation in the Police Report Program is limited to one premier firm per geographic region in 2026 to preserve data integrity and maintain competitive fairness for participating practices.

“We’re not building a list; we’re building alliances,” said Mohr. “Our partners aren’t just buying data—they’re joining a national compliance coalition.”

CLM ran the study through its proprietary CLM Sequoia platform, pulling the top 5 organic Google results for 28 legal keywords across 24 major U.S. cities in February of 2026. Each law firm page in the dataset was then fed through Winston AI, which scored every page for AI-generated content percentage. CLM also captured word count and readability scores for each URL. When the dust settled, the working dataset covered 2,435 law firm ranking appearances, 1,618 unique URLs, and 1,021 unique domains across 8 practice areas including personal injury, criminal defense, family law, estate planning, business law, workers’ compensation, medical malpractice, and employment law.

The headline finding? AI content percentage and organic ranking position have no statistically significant connection. The Spearman correlation came back at r = 0.065 with a p-value of 0.138, which lands well above the 0.05 cutoff that would indicate a real relationship.

“For the past two years, the loudest conversation in legal marketing has been whether AI content helps or hurts your Google rankings,” said Jason Bland, Co-Founder and CEO of Custom Legal Marketing. “We went out and measured it across more than 2,400 ranking appearances. The answer turned out to be neither. You are not going to leapfrog your competitors by publishing AI content, and you are not going to get slapped for it either. The algorithm just does not care.”

Key Findings on AI Content and Law Firm Rankings

AI content shows up on nearly every ranking law firm page, but the way it distributes is striking. Roughly 54.7% of ranking pages have 5% or less AI-detected content. On the other end, 21.4% clock in at 70% or higher. What is missing is the middle. Fewer than one in four pages land in the 6 to 69% range. Rather than a gradual shift toward AI adoption, the industry appears to be splitting into two distinct camps: firms that barely use it and firms that use it for almost everything.

Of all the practice areas CLM studied, personal injury has the most AI content by a wide margin. The median AI detection for PI pages sits at 14%, which is roughly five times the 3% median across all practice areas. Not a single personal injury law firm page in the top 5 results came back clean. Every one of them had some detectable AI content. Criminal defense, on the other hand, looks completely different. Eighty-seven percent of pages ranking at Position 1 for criminal defense keywords had less than 10% AI, making it the most human-written category in the study.

The data points toward a blended workflow as the strongest approach. Pages landing in the 26 to 50% AI range, which likely reflects content where a writer used AI for drafting or research and then did heavy editing, posted the best average ranking position at 2.83 and the highest average word count at 2,958 words. Meanwhile, pages at the 71 to 100% AI level averaged only 1,561 words and ranked a bit worse at an average position of 3.23.

There is also a readability problem that firms using AI heavily need to know about. CLM found a correlation of r = -0.233 (p < 0.0001) between AI percentage and readability score. Put simply, the more AI on the page, the harder it is to read. That matters on its own, but it also matters because word count (r = -0.089, p = 0.042) turned out to have a stronger statistical tie to rankings than AI percentage did. Firms pumping out AI content without editing it down may be quietly undermining their own performance through readability issues they have never measured.

Where a firm is located also plays a role in how much AI content surrounds it in the search results. Columbus, OH came in as the biggest outlier at 59% mean AI content and a 76% median, most likely because national firms dominate the rankings there. On the low end, San Antonio (16.9%), Jacksonville (18.3%), and Houston (19.3%) had the least AI content, reflecting markets where regional and local firms still rely on traditionally written pages.

Study Methodology

CLM built the study inside Sequoia’s Research Tool, which runs regular studies to train its AI marketing platform.

The team executed all 672 keyword-city queries on mobile, matching how Google indexes and ranks pages under its mobile-first approach. Pages were scraped using a headless browser with an HTTP fallback for pages that resisted rendering. Winston AI handled the detection side, returning a percentage score for each page, estimating how much of the content appeared to be machine-generated. All told, CLM processed 1,889,828 words across the full law firm dataset. Of those, 615,934 words (32.6%) came back flagged as AI-generated.

The 24 cities in the study span the country: New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, San Jose, Austin, Jacksonville, Fort Worth, Columbus, Charlotte, San Francisco, Indianapolis, Seattle, Denver, Boston, Nashville, El Paso, Detroit, and Oklahoma City.

Implications for Law Firms

Bland was blunt about what the findings should mean for how firms spend their marketing dollars. “What gets you from Position 5 to Position 1 in competitive legal markets has not changed. It is still domain authority, content that actually says something, pages people can read without a headache, strong E-E-A-T signals, and solid local SEO. AI content does not appear anywhere on that list. If a firm is pouring money into AI content production but ignoring editorial quality and link building, they are focused on the wrong thing.”

One other number stood out: 18.2% of Position 1 results for personal injury keywords came from pages with 70%+ AI content. But those pages belong to a handful of firms with enormous authority behind them, which strongly suggests it is the domain strength doing the work, not the AI-generated copy.

The study analyzed 1,750 search engine results pages across 50 of the largest U.S. metropolitan markets, covering 11 high-volume personal injury keywords spanning three practice areas: general personal injury, motor vehicle accidents, and premises liability. Researchers captured the top five organic results for each of 350 keyword-city combinations, then measured each ranking URL against the Google PageSpeed Insights API. In total, 1,328 unique URLs from 653 distinct domains were evaluated across eight performance metrics including PageSpeed Performance Score, Largest Contentful Paint (LCP), First Contentful Paint (FCP), Cumulative Layout Shift (CLS), Total Blocking Time, Speed Index, mobile-friendliness, and HTTPS status.

The headline finding was a Pearson correlation coefficient of -0.0705 between PageSpeed performance scores and ranking position. To put that in perspective, the famously absurd correlation between Nicolas Cage film releases and swimming pool drownings is nearly ten times stronger. In practical terms, -0.0705 rounds to what it is: zero.

Nearly 65% of Top Ranking Law Firm Sites Fail Core Web Vitals

Among the study’s most striking findings was the performance of pages that hold the number one ranking position. Of the 340 pages occupying Position 1 across all searches, 64.7 percent received a “Poor” grade on Google’s own Largest Contentful Paint metric, meaning their primary content took longer than four seconds to render. Only 14.7 percent of Position 1 results met Google’s “Good” threshold of under 2.5 seconds for LCP.

The average PageSpeed score across all 1,750 top-five results was 64.9 out of 100, falling squarely within what Google classifies as the “Needs Improvement” range. The difference in average score between Position 1 (66.6) and Position 5 (64.1) was just 2.5 points on a 100-point scale.

Individual cases further illustrated the disconnect. One law firm page scored a perfect 100 on PageSpeed and ranked at Position 5 for its keyword, while a page scoring 28 held the Position 1 spot for a comparable keyword in a different market. The 72-point gap and nearly 11-fold difference in load time between the two pages did not translate into any ranking advantage for the faster site.

When CLM examined performance distributions by keyword, no consistent pattern emerged across the seven primary search terms analyzed. For car accident-related keywords, Position 1 results did show higher average scores than Position 5, but for medical malpractice keywords, the pattern was reversed. For slip and fall searches, the variation across all five positions fell within a 4.1-point range, suggesting random noise rather than a systematic relationship.

The study’s methodology was designed to isolate the relationship between speed and rankings within a single competitive vertical, eliminating the cross-industry noise that can confound broader studies. All data was collected in February of 2026, using live Google searches with geographic targeting to simulate local search behavior.

Custom Legal Marketing published the full study, including detailed breakdowns by keyword, city, domain type, and individual Core Web Vitals, through CLM Sequoia, its research and marketing intelligence platform built exclusively for the legal industry.

You can read the full report on Does Page Speed Matter for Law Firm SEO in Custom Legal Marketing’s knowledge bank.

While organizational and internal infrastructure upgrades came first, the software that makes that mission possible is, as of today, no longer a secret. At least the name isn’t.

Introducing CLM Sequoia, the AI-powered marketing platform built entirely by Custom Legal Marketing. CLM Sequoia isn’t finished, and it never will be. Like its namesake, the platform is built to never stop growing, for law firms that never want to stop growing.

CLM has been deploying components of Sequoia into law firm websites over the last year and, before that, reworking internal processes around the technology. The plugins, AI agents, research tools, and SEO and Answer Engine Optimization capabilities are already running. And law firms are already seeing Sequoia boost leads and cases, especially through its answer engine optimization features. Select clients already have some components running on their websites and woven into their account management processes.

Throughout 2026, every department, every account, and every internal operation at Custom Legal Marketing will be fully integrated into CLM Sequoia’s central platform. Some clients have already seen rapid deployment of purpose-built solutions through Sequoia, and every new tool that solves an individual problem gets absorbed into the main codebase, making the entire platform stronger.

From Legal Marketing Agency to Platform

In January, Custom Legal Marketing turned 21. The company was founded in 2005 by Jason Bland and Chris Kazor. For years, CLM did what good legal marketing firms do: building websites, writing content, earning links, and driving leads to law firms through Google Search, Google Maps, Google Ads, and all the usual channels.

But the world is changing. Law firms are changing. And here’s the thing nobody in the SEO industry likes to talk about: every marketing agency is buying the same data. When everyone has access to the same tools, nobody has a competitive advantage.

“I hate shopping and I love building,” said Bland. It’s a trait that shows up in every corner of his life.

The company has never been shy about building in-house. CLM has developed custom solutions and applications for years to solve problems, improve client experiences, analyze data, and streamline internal processes. But Bland found himself still wasting time shopping for the right tools from other vendors; tools that were available to every competitor at the same time.

The decision to stop shopping and start building a unified platform was inevitable.

CLM is not licensing someone else’s software and putting a logo on it. Not waiting for a vendor to ship a feature that might solve tomorrow’s problem for CLM and every other agency plugged into the same system. It’s building its own solutions, for every operation, from the ground up.

The result is Sequoia. The platform combines over two decades of legal marketing experience with AI processing power, research tools that analyze the results of in-house studies, and automation. It lets AI do what it does best while letting CLM’s team do what they do best. One single intelligence layer across every client engagement.

Law Firm Marketing Directors Don’t Need Vendor Migration Headaches

Law firms don’t want migration headaches. Marketing directors don’t want to rip out every vendor when they switch agencies. Sequoia was designed with that in mind. The platform works with the applications a law firm already uses and supercharges their marketing from there.

CLM now controls its own roadmap and offers tools and insights that are exclusive to the law firms that partner with it. When the industry shifts, CLM doesn’t wait; they build the solution and deploy it.

“You only get into search marketing if you love constant change,” said Bland. “That’s why CLM Sequoia is so exciting. It’s not finished and never will be. It’s always growing.”

For more information about CLM Sequoia, visit https://custom.legal/sequoia.

The case, Robert Klingler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Matthew Morrison Bates et al., was filed Jan. 15, 2026, according to the federal court docket.

The complaint names defendants, including Hedgehog CEO Matthew Morrison Bates, Wilfred Jose Manuel Vigil, Joshua Curtis Bishop, Frances Palacios, Stronghold Capital Partners LLC, Stronghold Wealth Partners LLC and others.

Securities Fraud Attorneys alleges that Hedgehog Investments raised millions of dollars through promissory notes by promising investors their funds would be used to help growing companies obtain financing and generate returns. Instead, as alleged in the complaint, investor money was misused in a scheme resembling a Ponzi scheme, with new investor funds used to pay returns to earlier investors.

In May 2025, the Utah Division of Securities issued an emergency order to cease and desist against Hedgehog Investments and affiliated individuals and entities. The order accused the respondents of unlicensed securities activity, securities fraud, making untrue statements and omitting material facts. It found that bank records showed little to no evidence of investor funds being used for the promised purpose of financing growing companies.

The order and related public records also highlighted serious red flags, including Bates’ prior felony conviction and status as a registered sex offender, Vigil’s lengthy criminal history and placement on Utah’s Buyer Beware list, and professional reprimands against other affiliated individuals.

A July 2025 news report on the state action described the operation as using new investor money to pay older obligations, characteristic of a Ponzi scheme.

“As alleged in the complaint, plaintiffs believe this was a massive Ponzi scheme based in Utah that affected investors nationwide,” said Scott Silver, managing partner of Silver Law Group. “Scott Silver is proud to represent the investors and victims in this case and looks forward to helping them recover their investment losses.”

This lawsuit is part of Silver Law Group’s ongoing efforts to hold promoters of fraudulent promissory-note and private investment schemes accountable and to recover losses for defrauded investors across the country.

The lawsuit seeks to proceed as a class action and recover losses for affected investors. No class has been certified, and the court has not ruled on the merits of the allegations.

Securities Fraud Attorneys continues to investigate claims and seeks to represent additional investors who suffered losses in Hedgehog Investments’ promissory notes.

The lawsuit was filed with co-counsel from JurisLaw LLP and Peiffer Wolf Carr Kane Conway & Wise LLP.

CASE INFORMATION

Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Utah
Case: Robert Klingler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Matthew Morrison Bates et al.
Case No. 2:2026cv00043
Filing date: Jan. 15, 2026

The company, founded in January 2005 under parent company Adviatech, began at a time when Google was one of several major search engines, social media platforms had little relevance to law firms and smartphones had yet to reshape daily life. Its anniversary arrives as artificial intelligence tools and answer engines alter how people find lawyers and evaluate law firms online.

Over the past two decades, Custom Legal Marketing has helped move the legal industry through the gradual transition from static brochure websites to integrated digital strategies that fold in search engine visibility, content, local search, email outreach and video.

The shift towards AI chatbots may have been unexpected for some, but CLM started developing AI-focused strategies years before ChatGPT was shared with the public. CLM has invested in an AI-powered marketing platform that has supercharged the way their team gets results for law firms. The system is built entirely in-house and has been getting integrated into the various departments within CLM. After nearly 4 years of secrecy, CLM plans to announce the platform publicly later this year.

Custom Legal Marketing’s evolution has been driven as much by experimentation as by process. Designers, writers and developers work together on campaigns that often blend long-form explainers, visual storytelling and search-focused content, with the goal of making complex legal issues accessible without sacrificing accuracy. More recently, the company’s homegrown AI platform has become a quiet engine behind many of those efforts, surfacing patterns in search trends, user behavior and local competition that inform creative choices rather than replace them.

That mix of creativity and data has led to work that stands out in a crowded field. Custom Legal Marketing’s projects have included award-winning commercial production and web campaigns that helped small firms expand into regional practices. Many clients have remained with the agency through multiple redesigns and market shifts, citing a willingness to test new ideas while staying candid about what is and is not working.

“Our culture has always been about creative thinking and not just chasing Google’s latest move,” co-founder Jason Bland said. “Our team members having the freedom to experiment is one of the reasons we’re so far ahead of the curve on AI marketing.”

The Fall 2025 session, titled “Good Business Practices & Preventing Problem Employees,” will take place on Tuesday, November 12, from 5:15 p.m. to 7:15 p.m. at the Massachusetts School of Law, Room 204. Sandwiches will be provided.

This free two-part seminar series brings together expert faculty from MSLAW to explore the most pressing issues employers face — from employee management and theft prevention to shielding small businesses from lawsuits.

Seminar Part I Topics (November 12):

• Effective Management and Operational Strategies – Michael Leamy, Professor of Business
• Shielding Your Small Business from Lawsuits – Paula Colby-Clements, Professor of Law
• How to Draft Totally Awesome Severance Agreements – Joseph Devlin, Professor of Law
• Monitoring Your Own Employees – Amy Dimitriadis, Professor of Law
• Employee Theft – Shane Rodriguez, Professor of Law

Part II (March 26, 2026) will continue the series, addressing advanced topics such as documenting performance, harassment and OSHA compliance, corporate veil issues, and remote worker liability.

Opening remarks will be given by Michael L. Coyne, President and Dean of the Massachusetts School of Law, who emphasized the importance of practical education for business owners:

“Our goal is to make the law accessible — empowering business leaders to make informed, confident decisions that strengthen their companies and protect their employees.”

The event is free and open to the public, to register attendees can scan the QR code below.

The complaint, Batman Investments LLC v. Hostetter, et al., was filed Aug. 27, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The action seeks at least $700 million in compensatory damages, plus pre- and post-judgment interest.

Defendants are identified as Jerry Hostetter, Mir Jafer Ali “Buck” Joffrey, Randall Leaman and David Zook. The proposed class alleges the companies and their executives raised roughly $700 million from about 2,700 investors by claiming to own and operate about 38,000 ATMs nationwide. According to the complaint, Prestige and Paramount owned fewer than 10,000 ATMs, with fewer than 1,000 in operation, and used new investor funds to pay prior investors.

The suit alleges that executives diverted investor money for their personal benefit and concealed mounting losses through deceptive accounting practices. The filing cites missed investor payments beginning in April 2024 and references subsequent events involving non-party Daryl Heller, including an FBI search in December 2024 and a February 2025 bankruptcy.

“We are seeing a rise in cases involving unregistered securities raising millions of dollars using unlicensed promoters to help raise capital,” said Scott Silver, managing partner of Securities Fraud Attorneys. “Unfortunately, while privately held companies need access to capital, investors need to be careful about false representations, securities fraud, and the proliferation of Ponzi schemes in the private marketplace.”

The case seeks to certify a class of investors who purchased interests in the Prestige Funds and related entities tied to Paramount’s ATM operations. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws and state-law claims and requests a jury trial.

Investors who purchased interests associated with Prestige Funds, Paramount Management Group or related entities and who suffered losses are encouraged to contact Securities Fraud Attorneys for a confidential consultation.

CASE INFORMATION

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Batman Investments LLC v. Hostetter, et al.
Case No. 5:25-cv-04911

Mr. Abendschein’s track record of driving digital transformation and building advanced technology platforms will reinforce the company’s leadership position in the Medical-Legal sector, as well as streamline PLCP’s next generation of technology-enabled digital products to complement its expert-led damages valuation services.

“Over the last year and a half, we have been making bold technology investments to reimagine what damages valuation can look like for our clients in a modern, data-driven world,” said Chad Harris, Chief Executive Officer of Physician Life Care Planning. “Bringing David on board as CTO reflects our commitment to not only setting the industry standard, but also building the tools that empower attorneys, medical experts, and clients with faster, smarter, and more reliable solutions. We will launch innovative new digital and expert service products throughout 2026—offerings unlike anything seen before.  We are thrilled to welcome David and look forward to everything we will achieve together.”

David Abendschein commented, “I am honored to join PLCP at such a pivotal time in its journey. Not only does PLCP understand the importance of innovation, but this team recognizes the importance of delivering high-quality and differentiated products at industry-leading timelines. I look forward to building on the strong foundation that is already in place, as well as leading the next wave of technology-driven products that will dramatically redefine how attorneys leverage technology and data for damages valuation in personal injury litigation matters.”

The appointment of Mr. Abendschein underscores PLCP’s investment in technology and the broader leadership team to combine next-generation technology solutions and expert services to deliver unmatched value to attorneys law firms, and clients across the country.

The study, conducted by researchers at the University of Illinois Chicago, surveyed more than 1,000 rideshare drivers in the Chicago area. According to the findings, approximately 33 percent of respondents reported being involved in at least one crash while driving for Uber or Lyft. The survey also revealed that 45 percent of drivers had close calls or near misses, suggesting that the real scope of the issue may be even broader.

Greenberg, whose firm represents clients involved in Uber car accidents and Lyft car accidents, said, “The findings confirm what many personal injury lawyers and public safety advocates have suspected for some time. Rideshare drivers face unique pressures and hazards that can increase the likelihood of accidents. For passengers, that means understanding there are risks each time they enter a rideshare vehicle.”

Researchers found that the majority of accidents reported by drivers occurred during peak travel hours, with many incidents linked to driver fatigue, distracted driving, and challenging urban traffic conditions. Greenberg noted that rideshare drivers often work long shifts, sometimes exceeding the recommended limits for commercial drivers. “Unlike taxi or truck drivers, rideshare operators are typically independent contractors without the same regulatory oversight. This contributes to conditions where fatigue and distraction become more common,” he said.

The UIC study also pointed to the competitive nature of the rideshare economy as a contributing factor. Many drivers reported feeling pressure to accept more rides or drive longer hours to earn sufficient income, a situation that can lead to lapses in concentration and increased risk-taking on the road. According to the survey, nearly 60 percent of drivers reported checking their phones for ride requests or navigation while driving, and 22 percent admitted to taking calls or responding to messages mid-trip.

Greenberg, a highly experienced Chicago car accident attorney, underscored the importance for passengers to play an active role in their own safety. “Passengers should always verify the identity of their driver, wear seatbelts, and avoid distracting the driver. While most rideshare trips end without incident, awareness and caution can help reduce the risk of harm,” he said.

Safety advocates in Chicago have called for further measures to protect both drivers and riders. Proposals include mandatory safety training for rideshare drivers, limits on consecutive driving hours, and increased data sharing between rideshare companies and city officials. The City of Chicago has not announced any immediate policy changes, but a spokesperson for the Department of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection said the city is “closely reviewing the research and considering all options to enhance public safety.”

In recent years, the popularity of rideshare services has skyrocketed in major metro areas like Chicago, providing an accessible transportation alternative for millions. However, the rapid growth has also led to concerns about oversight and accountability. Unlike taxi drivers, rideshare operators are generally not required to undergo the same level of training or licensing. The insurance requirements for rideshare vehicles, while more robust than for private cars, may not always fully protect passengers in the event of a crash, Greenberg said.

“Insurance coverage in rideshare accidents can be complex,” Greenberg explained. “While Uber and Lyft provide commercial policies, there are still gaps that can leave those injured in a difficult position when seeking compensation. Individuals who are injured as passengers should seek legal advice to ensure their rights are protected.”

The UIC survey’s findings are likely to fuel further debate over the regulation of the gig economy and the balance between convenience and safety. Greenberg noted that while rideshare companies have introduced new safety features in their apps, including emergency assistance buttons and enhanced background checks, the recent data indicate more must be done to address the realities drivers and passengers face on the road.

For those who rely on rideshare services, experts recommend several steps to stay safe:

• Always confirm vehicle and driver details before entering the car.
• Wear a seatbelt on every trip.
• Avoid sharing personal information with drivers.
• Sit in the back seat when possible.
• Trust your instincts and end the ride if you feel unsafe.

As Chicago continues to grapple with the evolving impact of rideshare platforms, the research from UIC and the perspectives from legal professionals like Greenberg may serve as important catalysts for policy discussions aimed at improving safety for all road users.

West’s investigation veered into a reckless fishing expedition, far beyond legitimate tax enforcement. Alongside DOJ prosecutor Caryn Finley, West targeted Brasser with unfounded allegations that were without any evidence— ranging from Ponzi schemes, investment fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud, mortgage fraud, embezzlement, securities fraud, drug crimes, nominee accounts, and offshore fund concealment—none of which were substantiated and all later dropped. This onslaught forced Brasser, who had fully repaid over half a million dollars rFactr owed through the IRS’s Voluntary Disclosure Program (VDP) by 2021 after discovering the issue, to exhaust resources defending against fictitious claims. The 11 calls between West and McDowell, a litigant with a clear vendetta, raise alarming questions about what drove this relentless pursuit.

“Why did Agent West engage in 11 calls with a litigant Brasser was suing for sabotaging the company? Especially while McDowell was also facing securities fraud suits from rFactr’s much larger investors?” asked someone close to the case. “What motivated West to undermine the IRS’s own VDP, a critical program encouraging millions to settle tax debts without fear of prosecution? These actions demand scrutiny, and we urge Treasury Secretary Bessent to investigate.”

Brasser, charged under 26 U.S.C. § 7202 despite his VDP compliance, is preparing an appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Case No. 25-4165). His legal team contends that West’s questionable conduct warrants examination of whether external motives tainted the investigation.

Brasser, a leader in Charlotte’s tech scene and head of an AI consulting firm, remains resilient. His team calls for the courts to reject his incarceration, affirm his lack of criminal intent, and address the sabotage of rFactr by the McDowells. The appeal will seek justice for Brasser and answers for a scandal that threatens public confidence in the IRS.

CASE INFORMATION

Western District of North Carolina – Charlotte
United States v. Brasser
Case No 3:23-CR-6-MOC

Over a four-week period, Law Leaders placed 1,200 calls to small and mid-sized firms across the United States, using publicly listed phone numbers and local caller IDs. All calls were made between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. local time during peak business hours. The results were stark:

• 35% of calls went completely unanswered

“These findings confirm what we’ve been seeing for years – missed calls aren’t just a customer service issue, they’re a revenue crisis for law firms,” said Dustin Ruge, CEO of Law Leaders. “Today’s clients expect instant access and response. If they hit voicemail, they simply call the next attorney on the list. That’s why national brands are winning local cases – they answer every single call.”

Voicemail is No Longer a Safety Net

The study underscores the decline of voicemail as a viable intake tool. In an era shaped by Amazon-level speed and 24/7 service expectations, unanswered calls send the wrong message: that a firm may be understaffed, disorganized, or unresponsive.

According to national data:

• 80% of consumers hang up when reaching voicemail
• 94% are more likely to choose a firm that responds quickly
• 78% of legal clients hire the first lawyer or firm that answers their call or inquiry
• Only 7% of leads ever become retained clients

Technology is Filling the Gap

The report points to a shift toward AI-powered intake systems like LegalNavigator.ai, which answer calls 24/7, qualify leads in real time, schedule consultations, and even initiate retainer agreements instantly – eliminating the risk of lost leads without adding staff.

“Firms that adapt to today’s client expectations will grow,” added Ruge. “Those that don’t will keep losing clients before they even know they called. AI is now the answer to help firms answer all calls leading to time saved and increased revenue.”

Read the full Silent Lines report and calculate your firm’s potential losses at: https://www.legalnavigator.ai/post/silent-lines-new-study-shows-35-of-calls-to-law-firms-now-go-unanswered

Key points of the case:

• Not knowing his company rFactr was being purposely undermined, CEO Richard Brasser fought to save it, injecting his own money, forgoing his salary, personally paying employee health insurance, and using his family home as a guarantee. During this time, a suspicious house fire left his family homeless, after they barely escaped alive.
• Discovering a well-intended employee held back on submitting payroll taxes while making efforts to manage rFactr’s finances, Brasser entered the IRS’ Voluntary Disclosure Program (VDP), which allows participants to avoid prosecution, fully repaying the company’s $558,010 tax debt by 2021, with interest.
• Brasser discovers rFactr was being intentionally compromised.
• In a civil suit, Brasser claimed rFactr was being sabotaged by an investor and his wife, Charlotte, NC, high society couple Chris & Caroline McDowell, in their attempt to take over the company. Caroline McDowell allegedly used multiple fake aliases, listened in on confidential board meetings, and gave false statements to law enforcement.
• Brasser filed a civil suit against the McDowells.
• Shortly afterwards, Charlotte DOJ prosecutor Assistant US Attorney (AUSA) Caryn Finley – in what Brasser’s attorneys say was an illegal attempt to influence the civil suit – filed a criminal case against Brasser for the taxes he had already paid. His attorneys also claim that Finley targeted Brasser’s suffering family members, who had nothing to do with the case.
• It is unprecedented that the DOJ violated the terms of the IRS’ Voluntary Disclosure Program, and it remains unclear why Finley was allowed to prosecute.
• Then, as soon as Brasser was indicted, he was forced to drop his legal counsel – McGuireWoods – after they suddenly quadrupled their previously agreed upon fees. It was later discovered, Charlotte DOJ prosecutor Daniel Ryan’s wife – Erin Pritchard Ryan – works at McGuireWoods, raising major concerns as to whether the DOJ conspired to violate Brasser’s 6th Amendment rights to an attorney & a fair trial.
• A jury cleared Brasser of all the major fraud & evasion charges in 2024.
• Finley only secured a conviction on minor technicalities, which Brasser is now appealing.

“Richard Brasser did everything right once he discovered his company’s payroll taxes were behind and should not have been prosecuted, let alone sentenced to prison” says attorney Juan Chardiet “In all my years of jurisprudence I’ve never seen the DOJ use such firepower on a small case like this that’s already been resolved.”

“The DOJ in Charlotte is a cesspool, and instead of admitting wrongdoing, Washington is now scrambling to bury its prosecutors’ obviously unethical meddling and questionable relationships there.” A source close to the case says. “I’m sure they’re hiding the truth of the Brasser case from the new US Attorney as well as (Attorney General) Pam Bondi.”

CASE INFORMATION
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA – CHARLOTTE
United States v. Brasser
Case No 3:23-CR-6-MOC

Mecklenburg County Civil Case
rFactr Inc. v. McDowell
Case No. 2018CVS12299

HP Benson Association Inc., based in Farmington Hills, filed the lawsuit in Livingston County Circuit Court against Paramount Global, CBS Broadcasting Inc., and CBS Interactive Inc. The case, filed by attorney Martin H. Leaf, is listed under case number 25-32852-CZ.

“This case is not about politics it is about fairness and the public’s right to truthful information. Deception by the media, if it spews a biased narrative should not be allowed,” said Leaf.

The complaint accuses CBS News of omitting and misrepresenting material facts during its election reporting, including its coverage of Hunter Biden’s laptop and the portrayal of presidential candidates during televised interviews. The organization alleges these editorial choices misled viewers and influenced public perception at a critical time in the democratic process.

“This lawsuit is not intended to change the outcome of the 2020 election, nor is it politically motivated to favor one candidate or party over another. Instead, this legal action emerges from compelling recent evidence confirming long-held concerns about the deliberate concealment and distortion of critical information, which profoundly impacted voters’ ability to make informed decisions,” said Leaf.

“Regardless of political affiliation, Michigan consumers have the right to truthful and complete reporting,” said Leaf, counsel for HP Benson Association. “This case is about media accountability and the public’s access to accurate information.”

The lawsuit seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, not damages, and aims to address a pattern of deceptive, unfair, and unconscionable conduct by CBS News and its flagship program “60 Minutes” during the 2020 presidential election. The lawsuit also seeks declaratory relief that the Michigan Consumer Protection Act is an appropriate state regulation regarding harmful deception by the Media when their message is associated with hateful deceptive incitement associated with criminal violence against innocent Jews and other minorities.

Among the allegations, the lawsuit claims that:

CBS described the Hunter Biden laptop story as “unverified” or “Russian disinformation,” despite internal acknowledgment of its authenticity.

The network selectively edited interviews with then-President Donald Trump while presenting candidate Joe Biden in a more favorable light.

Biden was allegedly provided advance notice of interview questions and had his responses edited for clarity, without similar accommodations made for other candidates.

The suit also references recently reported concerns regarding President Biden’s health during the 2020 campaign, suggesting that key information was withheld from the public and not adequately pursued by major media outlets.

The legal action does not challenge the outcome of the election but argues that media organizations should be held accountable when their reporting may shape voter understanding of candidates and key issues.

The complaint further seeks clarification on the application of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act to broadcast and digital news content, particularly in cases involving allegations of misinformation or harmful editorial bias.

Martin H. Leaf
Counsel for Plaintiff
HP Benson Association Inc.
33228 W. 12 Mile Rd., Ste. 345
Farmington Hills, MI 48334

CASE INFORMATION
HP BENSON ASSOCIATION INC., a Michigan nonprofit, Plaintiff -v- PARAMOUNT GLOBAL d/b/a PARAMOUNT, a Delaware corporation, CBS BROADCASTING INC., a New York corporation, and CBS INTERACTIVE INC., a Delaware corporation
Case No. 25-32852-CZ
Download Case (PDF)

Even the IRS didn’t want the case prosecuted.

Despite the IRS’s clear lack of interest in criminal charges, Assistant U.S. Attorney Caryn Finley pressed forward with an indictment that mischaracterized a civil dispute involving rFactr, Inc. as criminal conduct, resulting in Mr. Brasser’s conviction on technical charges under 26 U.S.C. § 7202 for failing to pay trust fund taxes—charges he now appeals. The jury acquitted him of the more serious tax evasion charges under 26 U.S.C. § 7201, yet AUSA Finley’s decision to pursue this case, without apparent justification, threatens the VDP’s foundation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Case No. 25-4165) will reexamine the case, with Brasser’s legal team arguing that the indictment violates public policy and could inflict lasting damage on the VDP. “Punishing a taxpayer who acted in good faith sends a chilling message,” said appellate counsel Juan Chardiet. “This case must be overturned to safeguard the VDP and prevent an unconscionable travesty.”

The VDP motivates taxpayers to disclose compliance failures, enter repayment plans, and resolve issues without fear of criminal punishment. In 2016, Mr. Brasser exemplified this spirit, proactively reporting rFactr’s payroll tax challenges before any IRS investigation. Yet, the January 18, 2023, indictment threatens to unravel this vital program, signaling that honest efforts to comply may lead to punishment. This injustice demands urgent reexamination by the Court of Appeals to protect the VDP and taxpayers like Mr. Brasser, who acted in good faith and deserves no jail time.

A Good Faith Fight Amid Crisis
In 2016, rFactr, Inc., a tech startup founded by Mr. Brasser, faced severe financial turbulence, falling behind on payroll “Trust Fund” taxes. Rather than conceal the issue, Mr. Brasser hired a fractional CFO, two tax attorneys, and a certified public accountant to navigate the VDP. On June 30, 2016, before any IRS inquiry, rFactr submitted a preclearance request, which the IRS approved, admitting the company into the VDP by November 15, 2016. Mr. Brasser worked diligently with IRS revenue officers, making payments in 2016 and 2017, providing all requested data, and striving to save the business. He personally injected $72,000 into rFactr, forwent his salary, and funded employee health insurance through November 2017. By September 2021, he secured loans against his family’s Briarcliff Property, fully paying the principal, penalties, and interest for his Trust Fund Recovery Penalty (TFRP). The IRS released its tax lien against him on December 6, 2021, signaling a successful resolution—until this unwarranted prosecution emerged.

Personal Devastation, Unyielding Resolve
Amid these efforts, tragedy struck. In September 2016, a fire destroyed the Brasser family home, leaving Richard, his wife Megan, and their four children homeless and without possessions. Further blows followed: a contractor misappropriated insurance funds, and thieves stole stored belongings. Despite these hardships, Mr. Brasser pressed on, honoring his commitments to the IRS with extraordinary resolve.

A Misguided Prosecution Risks a Vital Program
Former senior DOJ and IRS officials, with decades of experience overseeing tax prosecutions, have condemned this indictment as “entirely unwarranted” and “one of the most egregious examples of prosecutorial discretion” they’ve witnessed. They call it a “terrible injustice” that strikes at the heart of the VDP. “It takes extraordinary courage to admit a mistake and work with the IRS to make it right,” said Juan Chardiet. “Punishing Richard Brasser—a man who told the truth, cooperated fully, paid his debts, and had no willful intent—sends a devastating signal that the VDP cannot be trusted.” Evidence from civil lawsuits suggests vengeful investors, including a board member, may have misrepresented rFactr’s financial struggles in 2018, falsely alleging “embezzlement or a Ponzi scheme”—claims never charged and unsupported by evidence.

No Crime, No Jail—An Urgent Plea
Mr. Brasser’s legal team insists this case never should have reached trial, and jail time would be a gross injustice. With no criminal history, he acted in good faith, fully repaid his obligations, and faced sabotage and personal loss. “Richard Brasser is not a criminal—he’s a father and entrepreneur who bared his soul to the IRS, rebuilt from ashes, and still faces this travesty,” said Steve Cash, Brasser’s defense attorney at trial. This prosecution isn’t just an attack on one man: it’s a dagger to the heart of the VDP. If this injustice isn’t corrected, the IRS will lose its ability to encourage honesty, and taxpayers will suffer.

A Call to Save the VDP and Deliver Justice
Now leading a thriving tech consulting firm, Mr. Brasser brings cutting-edge AI solutions to companies across the country while remaining an active part of the Charlotte business community. His legal team urgently calls on the court to reject incarceration, recognize his lack of criminal intent, diligent cooperation, and immense sacrifices, and consider the sabotage that derailed rFactr. “The VDP hangs in the balance. If the government punishes those who come forward, the program collapses, and tax compliance crumbles,” warned Juan Chardiet. “Reexamining this case is not just about Richard Brasser—it’s about saving a system that millions rely on.”

CASE INFORMATION
U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
USA v. Brasser
Case No. 3:23-CR-6-MOC