How to Remove an Above the Law Article (and Google)

What Is Above the Law and Who They Cover

Above the Law was founded in 2006 and has grown into the most widely read legal industry news site in the United States. Its editorial focus is squarely on the legal profession: law firm culture, attorney career developments, law school rankings, bar exam results, disciplinary proceedings, and the notable cases and controversies that define how the legal industry sees itself. The site is owned by Breaking Media, which operates a network of vertical trade publications, and it operates with editorial independence typical of a professional journalism outlet.

Above the Law's primary audience is lawyers and law students -- but this should not be misread as limiting its impact. When an attorney is written about by ATL, the article reaches the most professionally consequential readers possible: law firm partners considering hiring or partnership decisions, general counsel evaluating outside counsel, bar associations, potential clients researching attorneys, and legal journalists who often cite ATL as a primary source. A single ATL article about an attorney's disciplinary proceeding can have broader career consequences than coverage in a general news publication with a far larger audience.

ATL's domain authority is exceptionally high in its vertical. Articles about attorneys and law firms routinely rank on page one of Google for name searches, often within days of publication. The combination of a professional audience, a trusted editorial brand, and strong search rankings makes Above the Law one of the most reputationally significant publications an attorney can be covered by -- for better or worse. See our guide on Law.com article removal if you also appear on that platform, which frequently ranks alongside ATL for attorney name searches.

Types of Content Above the Law Publishes

Understanding what kind of content ATL publishes -- and why -- is essential to understanding what removal or correction paths are available. The categories most likely to create reputation problems fall into several distinct types, each with different characteristics and different response strategies.

Attorney Disciplinary Actions and Bar Proceedings

This is the category that generates the most urgent removal inquiries. ATL regularly covers attorney disciplinary proceedings from state bar associations, including suspensions, disbarments, and public reprimands. This coverage draws on public records -- disciplinary proceedings are typically public at the state bar level -- and ATL covers them with its signature editorial voice. The challenge for affected attorneys is that an ATL disciplinary article can rank for their name indefinitely, with the original charge language remaining visible even after the case is resolved, charges are reduced, or reinstatement occurs.

Law Firm Layoffs, Departures, and Controversies

ATL has a long track record of covering law firm economics -- layoffs, partner departures under contested circumstances, financial difficulties, and internal controversies. Individuals named in this coverage as parties to a firm dispute, as departed partners, or as subjects of internal allegations can find their names attached to articles that present an unflattering and often one-sided view of events. Because law firm matters often do not produce court records or official resolutions, the original ATL article may be the only public record of an event that ultimately resolved privately.

Notable Case Losses and Misconduct Allegations

ATL covers significant cases from the perspective of the legal industry, which means reporting on big verdicts, major losses, and alleged attorney misconduct in the handling of cases. An attorney on the wrong side of a significant verdict may find an ATL article about the case ranking prominently in their name search. Similarly, misconduct allegations -- even those that are ultimately resolved without findings of wrongdoing -- may be covered at the allegation stage and not updated to reflect resolution.

How to Contact Above the Law for a Correction or Removal

The first distinction to make when approaching Above the Law is whether you are requesting a correction (a factual error in the article) or a removal (taking the article down entirely). These are fundamentally different requests and should be framed differently. Corrections have a significantly better chance of success; removal requests based solely on reputational impact are almost never granted by journalism outlets of ATL's stature.

Requesting a Factual Correction

If an ATL article contains a demonstrable factual error -- the wrong outcome of a proceeding, an incorrect date, a misstatement of what charges were filed, or any other verifiable inaccuracy -- a correction request is appropriate and worth pursuing. Above the Law has editorial standards and processes corrections when they are clearly documented. Your request should: identify the specific factual error precisely, provide documentation that establishes the correct fact (court records, official bar records, published case outcomes), and be submitted through ATL's editorial contact channels in a professional, non-adversarial tone.

Requesting an Editor's Note or Update

A more achievable path than outright removal is requesting that ATL add an editor's note to an existing article reflecting significant subsequent developments. If disciplinary charges referenced in an article were later dismissed, if a case was decided in your favor after the original coverage, or if the factual circumstances changed materially from what the article described, a request for an editor's note -- "Editor's note: The disciplinary charges described in this article were subsequently dismissed by the state bar in [month/year]" -- is a legitimate editorial request that ATL has honored in documented cases. This does not remove the original article, but it changes its meaning substantially for anyone who reads it.

Requesting Removal

Direct removal requests should be reserved for situations where there is a genuine legal or ethical basis beyond personal discomfort with the coverage. ATL will not remove accurate, fairly reported articles simply because the subject finds them harmful. The strongest grounds for a removal request include: demonstrably false statements of fact (not protected opinion); articles that contain private information that was not properly disclosed or was obtained improperly; articles that involve individuals who were minors at the time of the events; or articles where the person covered was not actually involved and was included due to an error. Even in these cases, a correction may be offered instead of removal.

When Above the Law Won't Remove an Article

The vast majority of Above the Law removal requests are declined. Understanding why helps calibrate realistic expectations and focus energy on the paths that are actually achievable. ATL will not remove articles that: accurately report on attorney disciplinary proceedings based on public bar records; accurately cover law firm layoffs, departures, or internal controversies; accurately summarize court case outcomes or litigation conduct; or express editorial opinions about legal industry events, even unfavorable ones. Protected opinion is a cornerstone of First Amendment law, and ATL's editorial commentary about cases and legal industry figures is almost always shielded.

The Right to Be Forgotten (RTBF) framework -- which allows EU and UK residents to request de-indexing from Google -- is not directly applicable to ATL's editorial decisions about publishing content. ATL is a US publication governed by US law, and EU data protection regulations do not compel a US news publisher to remove content from its website. However, RTBF requests filed directly with Google can still de-index specific ATL URLs from Google's European search results, which is a meaningful but geographically limited outcome for individuals who qualify.

There is also a practical reality about the legal profession that shapes ATL's editorial posture: the publication covers attorneys, who are legally sophisticated and who sometimes attempt aggressive legal strategies to suppress coverage. ATL has institutional experience navigating legal threats and is represented by capable media law counsel. An approach that might work against a smaller publication is unlikely to succeed with ATL and may backfire significantly. The most productive engagement with ATL is professional, documented, and focused on verifiable factual matters rather than general grievances about coverage.

Google De-Indexing as a Backup Strategy

When direct removal from Above the Law is not achievable, Google de-indexing offers a path to eliminating the article from the most common discovery channel -- Google search results. De-indexing targets specific URLs: if a de-indexing request is successful, the specific ATL article URL disappears from Google search results for your name, even though the page continues to exist on ATL's website and is accessible to anyone who navigates directly to it. For the vast majority of people researching an attorney or firm, Google is the access point -- direct navigation to ATL to conduct a name search is far less common.

Google's legal removal troubleshooter is the starting point for submitting a de-indexing request for a specific URL. The available grounds include: personal information removal (for articles that include certain categories of sensitive personal data), outdated content removal (for older articles where continued prominence serves no ongoing public interest), and RTBF requests for EU/UK residents. The appropriate grounds for an ATL article depend heavily on the specific content -- a disciplinary article about an attorney who is still practicing is treated differently than a decade-old article about a charge that was dismissed involving a private individual who left the legal profession.

Google evaluates outdated content removal requests based on several factors: the age of the article, the ongoing public interest in the subject matter, whether the subject is a public or private figure in the relevant context, and whether the article contains information that creates harm disproportionate to any public interest served by its continued prominence. Attorneys are often treated as limited-purpose public figures in the context of their professional conduct, which raises the standard for de-indexing. An attorney with an active practice and recent media presence is a less compelling de-indexing candidate than a private individual who has since left the legal profession and has no ongoing public-facing role.

Use Google's legal removal troubleshooter to identify the right request type and submit the de-indexing request for the specific ATL URL. Working with a specialist who handles these requests regularly accelerates the process and improves the quality of the submission -- Google's decisions on borderline requests are influenced by how clearly the grounds are articulated and documented.

The AI Search Problem in 2026

The practical implication is that Google de-indexing alone is not a complete solution for an ATL article that has been indexed for any significant period of time. AI tools -- particularly Perplexity, which uses real-time retrieval, and Google AI Overviews, which draws on indexed content -- can surface an ATL article in response to a direct question about an attorney even when that article has been de-indexed from standard Google search results. Someone asking "What is [Attorney Name]'s disciplinary history?" may receive an AI-generated answer that cites an ATL article that no longer appears in a standard Google name search.

The most comprehensive approach to an ATL article that affects an attorney's AI search presence combines: direct engagement with ATL for a correction or update (which changes the content of the source document), Google de-indexing (which limits standard search access), and an active suppression and content strategy (which builds positive, authoritative content that AI systems are more likely to draw on when generating responses about the attorney). None of these paths alone is as effective as all three pursued simultaneously.

For attorneys particularly concerned about AI search exposure, it is worth noting that the AI's representation of you is only as good as what it can find. Building out a robust, positive, and authoritative online presence -- through published articles, speaking engagements, prominent professional profiles, and documented case wins -- gives AI systems better material to draw on when generating responses. This is reputation management's intersection with AI: it is not just about what is being said, but about what content dominates the information environment surrounding your name.

Working With a Professional

Addressing an Above the Law article effectively requires understanding the publication's editorial culture, knowing which requests are worth making, and executing simultaneously on all viable paths. An attorney handling their own ATL situation faces a structural disadvantage: the same professional judgment and communication skills that serve them well in legal practice can work against them when engaging with a publication that knows the legal profession intimately. A demand letter that would be effective in another context may read as heavy-handed to ATL's editors, who have seen many such letters and have institutional experience responding to them.

At Reputation Resolutions -- the team behind RemoveNews.ai -- we have worked with attorneys and law firms across a wide range of ATL situations. Our approach begins with an honest assessment: what does the article say, what grounds exist for correction or update, what is the realistic outcome of a direct approach to ATL, and what combination of Google de-indexing and suppression makes sense given the specific situation? We execute on all viable paths in parallel, and you pay only if we succeed.

For attorneys who are concerned about their broader digital reputation beyond a single ATL article, our team also provides comprehensive reputation management services through Reputation Resolutions. Reach us directly at 855-239-5322 for a confidential conversation about your situation, or use the consultation form below. We respond within one business day.