What does Attorney Match actually do?

You describe your legal situation and pay a one-time $10 fee. The software classifies your matter, ranks the attorneys we have whose public profiles fit your case and your state, and writes a personalized outreach letter for each one that you can edit and send. The number of matches varies by state and practice area. It is a directory and matching tool — it helps you find an attorney, it does not replace one.

Is this legal advice?

No. Attorney Match is not a law firm, not a lawyer-referral service, and not a substitute for a licensed attorney. Nothing on this site or in your results is legal advice, and using the Service does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Anyone trying to find the right attorney for a specific situation — individuals, families, and small businesses who want a qualified, jurisdiction-matched shortlist instead of guessing through search results.

What does it cost, and is there a subscription?

It is a one-time $10 fee for an initial case, $5 for a re-run on an existing account, and free filtering of results you already paid for. There is no recurring billing, ever.

Where do the attorney listings come from?

The directory is built from public court records (including the Free Law Project / CourtListener) and public legal-services directories, plus attorneys who claim and enrich their own listing. Attorneys never pay to rank.

Will you contact attorneys for me or sell my information?

No. We draft outreach letters for you to send. We never blast your matter to anyone and we do not sell your information. Your case description and uploads are encrypted at rest.

How is this different from a referral service?

A referral service is paid by attorneys to send them leads. Attorney Match takes no money from attorneys and never sends them your case — it ranks public profiles by fit and hands you the shortlist and draft letters to act on yourself.

Case tracker · Platform liability & Section 230

NetChoice, LLC v. Reyes (Utah social media regulation)

Platform liability & Section 230

Ruling issued

Preliminary injunction Sep 2024

AI system / company: NetChoice members (Meta, Google, Snap, TikTok, etc.)
Jurisdiction: United States (Utah)
Court / regulator: U.S. District Court, D. Utah (Judge Robert Shelby)
Status: Ruling issued

What happened

NetChoice sued to block Utah's social media law requiring age verification and parental consent for minors. In September 2024 the court granted a preliminary injunction, holding the law likely violated the First Amendment by restricting both minors' and adults' access to protected speech — one of a series of NetChoice injunction wins against state social-media laws.

About platform liability & section 230 cases

Cases testing the limits of platform immunity for algorithmically recommended content, and constitutional challenges to state social-media laws.

Sources

Attorneys who handle platform liability & section 230 cases

Anand Kumar Chavakula
Maryland
Civil rights
Consumer protection / unfair practices
Draft intro email
Opens your email app with a ready-to-edit draft. Replace the bracketed prompts with your details before sending. Free — no account needed.
Benjamin Edwin Calpino
Florida
Civil rights
Consumer protection / unfair practices
Draft intro email
Opens your email app with a ready-to-edit draft. Replace the bracketed prompts with your details before sending. Free — no account needed.
Laurel LaMontagne
District of Columbia
Civil rights
Consumer protection / unfair practices
Draft intro email
Opens your email app with a ready-to-edit draft. Replace the bracketed prompts with your details before sending. Free — no account needed.
Ross Q. Panko
District of Columbia
Civil rights
Consumer protection / unfair practices
Draft intro email
Opens your email app with a ready-to-edit draft. Replace the bracketed prompts with your details before sending. Free — no account needed.
Peter Andrew Koziol
Florida
Civil rights
Consumer protection / unfair practices
Draft intro email
Opens your email app with a ready-to-edit draft. Replace the bracketed prompts with your details before sending. Free — no account needed.
Timothy B. Hyland
Virginia
Civil rights
Consumer protection / unfair practices
Draft intro email
Opens your email app with a ready-to-edit draft. Replace the bracketed prompts with your details before sending. Free — no account needed.

More platform liability & section 230 cases →

Related cases

NetChoice, LLC v. Griffin (Arkansas Social Media Safety Act) (Ruling issued)
Gonzalez v. Google LLC and Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh (Ruling issued)

Informational summary compiled from the cited public sources. Not legal advice, not a complete case record, and not affiliated with any party. Attorney Match does not receive referral fees. Verify current status with primary sources before relying on this entry.