You're hiring outside counsel for something that matters. Verify before you engage.

Why this is harder than it should be

If you have ever tried to vet outside counsel beyond the firm's own pitch deck, you already know the experience. You start with the firm's website, which lists practice groups and named partners but offers no way to confirm bar status or discipline history. You move to Martindale-Hubbell, which has been the legal-profession directory of record for over a century but does not surface state-bar formal discipline at the depth a corporate buyer needs. You search the relevant state bar association lookup, which works well for the one state but tells you nothing about the partner's admissions and discipline history in the other forty-nine. You pivot to PACER for federal docket searches and to a state-by-state mix of online docket systems for state matters.

Each step takes ten or twenty minutes. Each one returns a fragment. Stitching the fragments together into a coherent picture takes hours, especially when the named partner is multi-state-admitted, when the firm has been through a merger that changed its formal name, or when a partner has moved between firms inside the past decade. You also have no easy way to surface Rule 11 sanctions decisions, motions to disqualify, or ineffective-assistance findings — those exist inside specific docket entries that require pulling and reading the underlying motion text.

The harder problem is recency. State bar discipline records are typically current. Court dockets update continuously but the case-tagging that would tell you the partner's pattern across case types is not standardized. The press archive on the firm's high-profile matters is searchable but inconsistent in depth. A check you ran two years ago when you first engaged the firm is not the same as a check you run today before the next big matter. The records exist; assembling them at this moment, in one place, with consistent formatting, is the part nobody has time for.

And then there is the question of who the right counsel actually is. The firm pitches the named relationship partner. The matter will likely be staffed by associates and counsel three levels below the relationship partner, with a different partner taking lead on substance. A corporate-buyer Vetting Report that focuses on the actual lead partner, surfaces the actual associates' bar status and admissions, and verifies the conflict-clearance posture on the firm's prior representations is the diligence floor that prevents the most common engagement disappointments.

What MentionFox brings to this job

The Executive Vetter is the workhorse for named-partner diligence. The Publication Vetter handles media-and-communications counsel and public-press-driven subjects. The Lawyer Den is the parallel surface for lawyers themselves who want to understand how the public record reads on their own profile.

A typical workflow — what a general counsel actually does

A mid-sized public company is being investigated by the SEC over a disclosure matter. The general counsel needs to retain SEC enforcement defense counsel within ten days. Three firms have pitched. Each pitch names a relationship partner, but the GC knows the matter will be led day-to-day by a different partner inside each firm. Before the retention decision, the GC opens the Executive Vetter and runs a Snapshot on each of the three actual lead partners.

She runs three Snapshots for 600 credits total. In about ten minutes, she has structured one-page briefs on each: bar admissions and current status across every admitted jurisdiction, formal discipline history at the state-bar level, federal and state docket footprint, prior SEC enforcement-defense matters from the press archive, prior Rule 11 and disqualification surface, and a headline recommendation. Two of the three are clean across the board. The third has one matter from twelve years ago that resulted in a brief inactive status during a personal medical absence, fully resolved. She decides to run a full Vetting Report on the two clean candidates for 1,000 credits each.

Twenty minutes later she has the full twelve-section dive on each of the two finalists. The case-type pattern across the federal court docket shows one finalist has handled forty SEC enforcement-defense matters in the past five years; the other has handled twelve, but both involved disclosure-investigation fact patterns specifically similar to her company's. The press archive shows both partners have spoken publicly on the disclosure-investigation rulemaking that is relevant to her matter. The discipline history is clean across both. The Rule 11 surface is clean across both. The conflict-clearance section flags one prior representation per finalist that the GC's outside-counsel-conflict team will need to clear separately.

What she did not do: spend twelve hours toggling between fifty state bar lookups, PACER, CourtListener, three firm websites, the SEC EDGAR system, the press archive, and Martindale-Hubbell. The reports did the assembly. She did the reading.

What data sources the report draws from

Every claim in an Executive Vetting Report on a named-partner attorney is anchored to a named, public, federal-or-state source. The methodology page lists every source class and how it is weighted. For companies-evaluating-law-firms specifically, these are the sources that drive the report.

• State bar associations — fifty state bar associations plus the District of Columbia. Each maintains its own public attorney lookup with bar admission date, current status, formal discipline history, transfer to inactive status, and reinstatement history. The relevant state bar lookup URL is surfaced in the report so the verification of record is one click away.
• CourtListener — federal and state court docket aggregator built and maintained by the Free Law Project. Provides docket history where the named partner appears as counsel of record, case-count by court and by case-type, Rule 11 sanctions decisions, motions to disqualify, ineffective-assistance findings, and the underlying docket entries with cited motion text.
• PACER — the federal court case-and-docket system. CourtListener mirrors and indexes PACER federal records; specific docket entries are linked back to their PACER source where citation specificity matters.
• SEC EDGAR — for transactional partners and securities-law partners, EDGAR surfaces every public filing where the named partner has signed as company counsel, every proxy statement that names the partner as primary outside counsel, and every Form 4 or Form 5 where the partner appears in a director or officer disclosure capacity.
• Martindale-Hubbell — the legal-profession directory of record. Provides peer-rating disclosures and credentialing history. Treated as Authoritative-Secondary signal alongside state-bar discipline records, never as a primary discipline source.
• Lex Machina (cited as comparison) — the litigation-analytics platform that aggregates court-docket data with attorney and firm tagging. Cited in the methodology as the comparable litigation-analytics platform; the Vetting Report is structured for corporate-buyer diligence rather than litigator competitive analysis, so the two are complementary tools.
• The American Lawyer and Law360 archives — reputable legal-press archives covering high-profile matters, lateral-partner moves, firm mergers, and notable rulings. Treated as Authoritative-Secondary signal where the press cites primary sources directly.
• The state attorney general and federal-agency disciplinary records — for matters where the named partner has been the subject of a federal-agency referral or state-attorney-general action, those records are surfaced separately from state-bar discipline records.
• SEC and other federal regulatory filings on the firm itself — where the firm appears as a registered participant in a regulated activity (broker-dealer counsel of record, SEC-registered fund counsel, FINRA member counsel), the firm-level regulatory record is surfaced in addition to the named-partner record.
• The press archive on prior client engagements — for matters where the firm or named partner has been publicly identified as counsel of record in a notable prior matter, the press archive surfaces the prior matter's outcome and any public reputational pattern.

The four-class source taxonomy is explicit. Federal-Primary sources carry the highest weight. State bar associations and federal court dockets are Authoritative-Secondary. Press archives are signal, never verdict. Unverified claims are tagged, not laundered.

Sample report walkthrough

The canonical sample for executive-tier diligence is Brian Chesky, the chief executive of Airbnb. The full Executive Vetting Report runs the public record on a named executive subject through the same twelve-section structure that an outside-counsel diligence pass would face, with executive-specific weighting on SEC filings, governance disclosures, public-press signal, and litigation surface. The same source taxonomy and defamation guardrails apply.

For a publication-vetter sample where the diligence focus is media-and-communications-driven public-press footprint, see the Platformer Vetting Report. Both reports were generated from public records only, with full source citations and the same defamation guardrails that apply to every report on the platform.

Pricing for this use case

For media-and-communications counsel, the Publication Vetter is the right tool: 30 credits Snapshot, 200 credits full report. Credits are sold in packs and via monthly subscription. See the full pricing page for credit-pack options.

Mini case studies

Frequently asked questions

Related