Federal court records behave differently from state ones in a way that changes the whole approach: there is no federal expungement statute for most convictions.
State systems generally provide some route to sealing or expungement after a waiting period. The federal system largely does not. There is no general mechanism to seal a federal conviction, and relief is confined to narrow circumstances such as certain acquittals, dismissals, or a presidential pardon, which does not itself erase the record.
So the leverage that drives most work on our main guide, the court order, is usually unavailable here. This page is about what remains, and the five firms that work federal matters.
PACER is the reason federal records spread differently
Federal filings live in PACER, the electronic access system covering district, bankruptcy and appellate courts. It is designed for public access and it is comprehensive, which produces two effects.
Federal records are more completely and reliably published than state ones, because there is a single national system rather than thousands of county practices. And they are systematically harvested: legal research services, docket aggregators and free mirrors pull from PACER continuously, so a federal case propagates further and more consistently than a state matter.
The practical consequence is that the source stays put and the copies are the entire achievable job. That is the opposite of a state case, where sealing the source is often the highest-value step.
What is achievable, stated plainly
Three things, in descending order of likelihood.
Clearing private aggregator copies. Commercial docket sites, background check services and news mirrors carry no obligation to publish. This is where the work is.
Correcting inaccuracy. Aggregators mishandle federal dockets frequently: a dismissed count reported as a conviction, a codefendant’s charges attributed to the wrong person, sentencing figures pulled from the wrong document. Inaccuracy is a much stronger argument than any takedown request.
Search visibility. Where the record is accurate and permanent, the remaining lever is what ranks on your name.
What is not achievable is removing the docket from PACER or from the court’s own file. Any company implying otherwise is describing the first item while letting you hear the third.
Two narrow exceptions worth checking
Certain federal dismissals and acquittals can support restricted access in limited circumstances, and specific offense categories have their own relief provisions. These are narrow, fact-dependent, and genuinely worth asking a federal criminal defense attorney about rather than assuming.
A pardon is also not erasure. It is forgiveness of the offense and it does not remove the conviction from the record, though it is a meaningful fact to present to a private publisher.
The five
Minc Law
An internet defamation firm in Cleveland, founded 2018, litigating in 26 states and 5 countries with over 200,000 pieces of content removed. The relevant capability for federal matters is the inaccuracy route: where an aggregator has misreported a docket, that is a false statement of fact and the analysis becomes defamation rather than records law. Not a federal criminal defense firm.
National Security Law Firm
Washington DC, working across all 50 states, at a flat 3,000 dollars per article or listing refunded in full if the item is not removed or de-indexed. Explicitly handles court decisions, docket listings and government announcements.
Two things make this firm a reasonable fit for federal work specifically. Its core practice is security clearance, federal employment and military defense, so federal systems are familiar territory rather than an adjacent specialism. And the flat fee prices cleanly once you have counted aggregator copies, which on a federal matter you can do thoroughly because the underlying docket is consistently published.
Kohrman Jackson and Krantz
A content removal and internet defamation group inside a full service business firm dating to 1918, working nationally on retainer. Federal matters are disproportionately business-related, and where the docket connects to something ongoing, a regulatory proceeding, a licensing issue, a civil suit, one firm holding both prevents the removal strategy from contradicting the litigation position.
RM Warner Law
Scottsdale, more than a decade in internet defamation, offering demand letters through to court ordered removal. On the public record and worth raising at the first call: the 2018 State Bar of Arizona investigation of the partners over lawsuits filed against apparently fictitious defendants, which resulted in discipline for two attorneys.
Top Shelf Reputation
Our own service. On federal matters we start by auditing the aggregator layer, because that is the achievable work, and we check each copy against the actual docket, since misreporting is common enough to be worth looking for rather than assuming.
We are not a law firm and we do not advise on federal relief. Where an exception might apply, that is a federal criminal defense attorney, and we would rather send you there first than quote you for cleanup that a change in the underlying record would make cheaper.
Against us: no published pricing.
Reference
| Firm | Type | Aggregator copies | Inaccuracy claims | Pricing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Minc Law |
Law firm | Yes | Yes | Retainer |
 National Security Law Firm |
Law firm | Yes | Yes | 3,000 per item, refunded on failure |
 Kohrman Jackson and Krantz |
Law firm | Yes | Yes | Retainer |
 RM Warner Law |
Law firm | Yes | Yes | On request |
 Top Shelf Reputation |
Agency | Yes | No | On request |
No entry can remove a docket from PACER, and none claims to.
What to do first
- Pull your own docket and read it against every aggregator copy. Misreporting is the strongest argument available and it is free to find.
- Ask a federal criminal defense attorney whether any narrow relief applies to your disposition. Free consultations are common.
- Build the aggregator list, including legal research mirrors and background check services, which are often missed because they rank below the news coverage.
- Then price the removable list rather than the whole problem.
Federal relief is narrow and fact-specific, and nothing here substitutes for advice from an attorney admitted in the relevant district. Notes on individual docket aggregators are in the blog, and a case review will tell you what is realistically removable before you commit to anything.
Last updated on July 29, 2026