RMG Digital Solutions Who We Serve
914.786.3544 A first conversation

Who we serve

The same problem behaves differently depending on whose name is on it.

A false statement about a private individual, a listed company, and a public figure are three different matters with different mechanisms, different timelines, and different definitions of a good outcome.

These distinctions shape the work. They change the work substantively. A private individual has legal protections of their own. A listed company has disclosure obligations of its own. An owner-operated business relies heavily on a local review profile that is irrelevant to an executive at a multinational.

The common thread

Every client here has a name that carries consequences.

Whether that name belongs to a person, a family, or an institution, the underlying condition is the same: what the searchable record says is affecting decisions that other people make, and the record is out of proportion.

Who we serve

Executives & Founders

Your personal record and your institution's are read as one document.

Anyone conducting diligence searches the company and then searches you, and the weaker of the two results sets the impression they carry into the room. A private individual with a bad search result has a personal problem. A named executive with the same result has a problem that attaches to a board, a valuation, a hiring pipeline, and a set of counterparties who quietly hesitate.

The most common version we see is quieter than scandal. It is a stale record: an earlier venture described only at its worst moment, a dispute resolved on confidential terms, a namesake with a criminal record and a similar professional profile. The second most common is thinness: a founder who has spent fifteen years building something and has a limited published record, consisting of a funding announcement, a conference bio, and one adverse account. In that vacuum, that one account is the record.

Why this behaves differently

  • Diligence reads you as a set

    You, the company, and the other named executives. Your record is assessed as part of a set.

  • The stakes are transactional

    A search result on a private individual attaches to one life. The same result on a named executive also attaches to a board, a valuation, and a hiring pipeline.

  • Silence is read as substance

    A thin record on someone consequential invites inference, and inference is usually less generous than the facts.

What usually applies

Asked in these matters

Can my personal matters stay between us, out of the company's view?

Yes, and it is common. Where an individual engages privately, nothing is reported to the company. Where a company sponsors a program, the boundaries between individual and institutional reporting are agreed in writing at the start.

Who we serve

Corporate

An entity has a reputation, and so does everyone who signs on its behalf.

Corporate matters differ from personal ones in three structural ways. There are more stakeholders, each reading the record for different reasons: customers, investors, regulators, employees, acquirers. There are disclosure obligations that constrain what can be said and when. And there is an in-house legal function whose position determines the available strategy, which means coordination is built in.

The entity-level work is largely architectural. A company frequently operates under a legal name, a trading name, and a brand, and until those are stated together in a machine-readable form, search and AI systems maintain three partial entities instead of one. The second half is people: every named executive is individually searchable, diligence follows those names, and the weakest individual record becomes the accessible line of inquiry.

Why this behaves differently

  • Multiple audiences, one record

    Investors, customers, regulators, and candidates read the same material for different purposes and reach different conclusions.

  • Disclosure constrains the response

    What can be said, and when, may be determined by obligations rather than by strategy.

  • The record outlives the cycle

    Coverage stops; search results and model answers keep going. That is the phase most crisis engagements leave.

What usually applies

Asked in these matters

Do you handle employee review sites?

We will assess them and address material that violates a platform's published policy or contains demonstrable factual error, and we build the record that puts a fair picture beside them.

Who we serve

Regulatory & Enforcement Matters

An allegation is public from the day it is filed, and stays findable long after it resolves.

Regulatory, enforcement, and professional-conduct matters have a shape of their own. The filing is public immediately and permanently, usually on a government source with high authority that search systems index quickly. The resolution arrives months or years later, is reported far less, and the connection to the original filing is usually missing wherever a machine looks. The result is a record that shows an accusation clearly and its outcome faintly, if at all.

That asymmetry is the work. We work on proportion. An enforcement action remains findable at its source and the primary record stays as it is. What we work on is whether everything else that is true about a person is findable alongside it: the resolution and its terms, the decades of conduct that stood apart from it, and clear separation from anyone who shares a name and has a different history.

Why this behaves differently

  • The filing outranks the outcome

    Government sources carry high authority and are indexed immediately. Resolutions are reported less, and we link them to the original filing.

  • Counsel sets the boundary

    What can be said, when, and by whom is frequently determined by the proceeding rather than by strategy.

  • Namesakes matter more here

    A shared name attached to an enforcement record is the most damaging version of this problem, and the most tractable once the disambiguation work is done.

What usually applies

Asked in these matters

Will you work with me while my matter is still open?

Frequently, yes. The period while a matter is unresolved is often when the record is most distorted, and the best time to begin. Where a matter is active, we work within the position your counsel sets.

Who we serve

Individuals & Families

Just you, and one search result standing in for an entire life.

Private individuals occupy a genuinely different position from every other client this firm serves, and mostly a better one legally. Defamation standards are more favorable. Platform policies offer private individuals real protections. Statutory erasure rights, where they apply, apply here first. The available mechanisms are frequently stronger than people assume.

And it reaches into everything else. There is only you, at eleven at night, with the result in front of you. Because the stakes are personal, people often wait before seeking help, while the material settles into the index. And the stakes are immediate and personal rather than commercial: a job application, a rental agreement, a custody proceeding, a child who searched a parent's name. Because the mechanisms here are comparatively strong, this is also the category where an honest assessment most often produces good news.

Why this behaves differently

  • Stronger legal footing

    Private-individual standards in defamation, and platform policies written for private individuals.

  • The stakes are immediate

    Employment, housing, credit, custody, schooling. A life, rather than a valuation.

  • Aggregators monetize the record

    Sites that republish charges and then charge for removal. There are correct ways to handle these and expensive wrong ones.

What usually applies

Asked in these matters

A site is charging to remove my mugshot. Should I pay?

Usually not, and not before an assessment. Payment often results in the record appearing on a related site, and in many jurisdictions the practice is now restricted. There are frequently better routes, including the publisher's own policies and applicable statutes.

Who we serve

Family Offices

The objective here is frequently absence rather than presence.

Family offices invert the usual objective. Most clients want to be found accurately. A principal frequently wants not to be found at all, and where that is no longer possible, wants the findable record to be accurate, minimal, and stable. Publishing more material, which is the standard proactive intervention, is often exactly wrong: it creates surface area. The correct approach is usually reduction and control.

The scope is also different. The record belongs to more than one person: it includes a principal, a spouse, adult children, sometimes minors, several operating entities, a foundation, and the historical record of a business that may have been sold decades ago. Material about any of them can affect all of them. And the confidentiality problem is structurally larger: a family office typically has existing legal, tax, and security advisers, so the same standard has to hold across more people and more advisers at once, without duplicating or contradicting them.

Why this behaves differently

  • The objective may be absence

    Reduction and control rather than visibility. Publishing more can be precisely the wrong intervention.

  • Multi-generational scope

    Principal, spouse, adult children, minors, entities, and a foundation. Material about one affects the others.

  • Discretion standards are stricter

    Discretion is a condition of engagement here rather than a preference, and it shapes how the work is conducted and reported.

What usually applies

Asked in these matters

Can you reduce what data brokers hold?

Substantially, though not permanently, because brokers repopulate from public sources, so this is maintenance rather than a one-time removal. We will be clear about which entries can be taken down and which will return.

Who we serve

Public Figures

The achievable objective is proportion and context, not disappearance.

Public figures have the hardest version of this problem and the clearest one. The most demanding, because the legal protections are thinnest for public figures, which is why the work turns on proportion and on the record you build. Clearest because that constraint eliminates the options that waste other clients' money.

The work is therefore proportion. A public record is going to contain the difficult episodes; the question is whether it contains everything else at comparable weight. A great deal of what damages public figures is technically accurate and materially misleading: a quotation stripped of its question, a settlement described without its terms, a decade-old position presented as current. None of that is removable and all of it is addressable by making the fuller version equally findable. The AI dimension is acute here: models compress long careers toward the most distinctive episode rather than the most representative one.

Why this behaves differently

  • Weaker legal protection

    Actual malice standards and reduced platform protections. The available levers are editorial and structural rather than legal.

  • Accurate but misleading is the norm

    Stripped quotations, missing outcomes, outdated positions presented as current.

  • Litigation is a visibility decision

    Filing creates a durable public record. That trade-off has to be quantified before it is made.

What usually applies

Asked in these matters

Can you fix my Wikipedia entry?

What we can do is establish that the reliable sources it draws on are accurate, which is the route its own editors are meant to follow. Wikipedia has conflict-of-interest rules, so the work goes through the proper channels: sourced corrections proposed in the open, which is what holds.

Who we serve

Owner-Operated Businesses

Your name and the business's name are frequently the same asset.

For an owner-operated business the reputational and the commercial are the same thing, with almost no lag. A prospective customer searches, reads three results and a rating, and decides. There is no brand equity absorbing the impact and no communications function managing it, and the effect appears in the following week's bookings.

The most damaging single item we see here is an autocomplete suggestion: a business name completed with a word like scam, lawsuit, or complaints. It intercepts a customer at the moment of highest intent, before they have read anything, and most owners see something different because their own search history shapes what they see. Local AI answers are the second front: asked to recommend a provider in a specific area, a model produces a short list with reasoning, and whether you appear on it depends on structured local data and consistency across sources.

Why this behaves differently

  • Revenue responds immediately

    Reputation and cash flow are the same signal here, on a timescale of days rather than quarters.

  • Autocomplete is the highest-cost surface

    A suggestion intercepts intent before a single result is read, and owners usually see something else.

  • Local AI answers now gate discovery

    Models produce short recommendation lists, and appearing on them depends on structured local data.

What usually applies

Asked in these matters

A competitor is posting fake complaints. What can be done?

We document the pattern first with a dated record, then file platform reports on the policy grounds that apply, and where the conduct is serious we assemble material your attorney can act on.

Not sure which one you are?

Most people are between two of them. The four questions on Where to Begin will get you closer than choosing from a list, and the first conversation will establish which mechanisms actually apply.

Where to begin

Tell us where you are.

One conversation, in confidence, with an honest reading of what is actually there, including when the answer is that nothing needs doing.

A first conversation Or write to us directly

The first conversation and the preliminary review that follows it are free. You decide whether to continue.

Whether your situation calls for a lawyer is one of the most common questions we are asked, and it is usually settled in the first conversation. Where counsel should be involved we will say so and work at their direction, and where it is ours to handle we will tell you that too. Either way, the question is ours to answer rather than yours to work out first. How we hold information