Categories of work, described honestly, and an explanation of why you will not find a win rate, a dollars-saved counter, or a wall of five-star reviews on this site.
You have probably seen other firms' pages in this practice area. They tend to advertise a case count, a success percentage, a dollars-saved figure, and three anonymous five-star testimonials from a "Restaurant Owner, Brooklyn, NY."
None of that appears here, on purpose, for two reasons.
New York Rule of Professional Conduct 7.1 permits statements about results only where they are factual and can be substantiated, and it requires that comparisons and characterizations of quality be capable of substantiation. A figure like "92% favorable outcomes" is a comparative success rate with no defined denominator: favorable how, measured against what, over which population of matters? A firm that cannot answer those questions from its own files should not be publishing the number, and even a firm that can answer them usually cannot publish the number without a prospective client reading it as a promise.
Testimonials are permitted, but they have to be from actual clients, given with informed consent, and accompanied by the required disclaimer placed where the reader will see it, not in 10-point type at 60% opacity in the footer.
Suppose a firm has genuinely handled five hundred MCA matters. That tells you nothing about whether your confession of judgment was entered in the wrong county, whether your reconciliation clause was honored, or whether your guaranty is one of payment or of performance. A number is a substitute for the analysis. What follows is the analysis instead.
A merchant's operating account is restrained on a judgment entered by confession. We move by order to show cause addressing both the restraint and the validity of the underlying judgment, and negotiate over the release of funds needed to meet payroll while the motion is pending.
An out-of-state merchant learns of a New York confession of judgment only after enforcement begins. The motion to vacate turns on the residency and venue predicates of CPLR 3218 and on defects in the affidavit of confession itself, which can be apparent on the face of the clerk's file.
A merchant has taken advances from several funders within a few months, with overlapping UCC filings and more than one collection action pending. Defended as one coordinated strategy rather than a separate engagement per funder, with reclassification raised against each agreement where the terms support it.
Financing statements describing all assets remain on record after the underlying advances have been satisfied, and surface during a bank loan application. Authenticated demands are served under UCC 9-513(c), with the 9-625 statutory penalty identified.
A funder sues an owner individually on a guaranty that, read closely, guarantees the merchant's performance of specified covenants rather than repayment of the advance. The defense addresses the instrument's scope and the conditions on which liability depends.
The merchant asks for contractual reconciliation in writing as receipts decline and gets no adjustment. The documented request becomes the centerpiece of the argument that the reconciliation provision is illusory and the transaction a loan in substance.
Instead of a statistic, on the first call you get four things:
If the honest answer is that there is not much to work with, you will hear that too. It is a shorter conversation and it costs you nothing.
Because a success rate with no defined denominator is not information, and because NY RPC 7.1 permits statements about results only where they are factual and substantiable. What we will do is tell you, specifically, what we see in your documents and how hard we think your matter is.
Client identity and matter details are confidential, and we do not disclose them without informed consent. Where a former client has consented to speak with a prospective client, we can facilitate that on request, but we will not manufacture testimonials or publish anonymous ones.
Ask on the call. We will tell you whether we have appeared against a particular funder and its usual counsel, and what their pattern of practice is, to the extent that does not disclose another client's confidential information. That is a more useful answer than a case count.
Depending on the posture: vacatur of a judgment, release or limitation of a restraint, dismissal of a claim, termination of UCC filings, a negotiated payoff at a number that reflects actual exposure rather than the funder's opening demand, or a trial, which either side can lose. Which of those is realistic for you depends on facts we have not seen yet.
Send the documents. You will get the deadline, the grounds we can actually see, an honest read on difficulty, and a fee number.
