​Step 1: Intake Interview

• Schedule a free intake interview to determine if your matter falls within the scope of the firm’s services. 

Step 2: Document Review

• If it falls within the scope, the firm will request documentation to review in your matter for a ​flat fee.

Step 3: Representation Decision

• The firm will either offer assistance or decline to assist while providing three attorney referrals.

“Thanks again for watching after our daughter. We feel she is protected by you no matter the panel decision.” ~ Anonymous father

Request Intake

---

HIGHLIGHTED CASES

• Aereauna Houle v. University of North Dakota, Case No. 3:21-cv-00048 (N.D.) (arguing Title IX hostile environment, deliberate indifference, heightened risk, and erroneous outcome regarding serial harasser professor)
• Kellen Smith v. University of Michigan, Case 2:20-cv-11159 (E.D. Mich.) (arguing that after a student-athlete admitted to sexually assaulting his peer, the school and coaches left the victim without sufficient protections and support on campus and during track practice)
• Jill Roe v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00694 (W.D.N.C.) (arguing deliberate indifference by Myers Park High School officials to 15-year-old student's report of peer sexual harassment, rape, and sexual exploitation)
• Jane Doe v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., et al., Case No. 3:18-CV-00586 (W.D.N.C.) (arguing deliberate indifference by Myers Park High School to 17-year-old student's report of a peer kidnapping and rape in the woods)
• Jane Doe v. Old Dominion University, 289 F.Supp. 3d 744 (E.D. Va. 2018) (established a federal victim-advocate privilege after Virginia Attorney General challenged its assertion)
• Jane Doe v. Oregon State University, 6:18-cv-01432 (D. Or.) (challenged a mutual no contact order issued under Trump administration’s interim 2017 Title IX guidance as retaliatory)