Brand Boundaries

What We Do Not Do

A field investigation practice is defined as much by what it refuses as by what it produces. The limits below are structural commitments. They are linked from the site header for the same reason a methodology page exists: the limits are part of the work product.

  1. 01

    No surrogate testers.

    No investigation file produced by this office is generated by an investigator operating under another named plaintiff's identity. The plaintiff named in any complaint informed by our work personally encountered the barriers described in that complaint.

  2. 02

    No targeting of small businesses where pre-litigation remediation is possible.

    Where a public accommodation is owned or operated by a small business that has not previously been put on notice and where remediation is a realistic outcome, this office's standard practice is to support pre-litigation notice and a reasonable cure period consistent with California SB-585.

  3. 03

    No financial relationships with counsel conditioned on filing volume.

    No engagement between this office and outside counsel is structured around a per-case or per-filing economic incentive. Investigation work product is priced and invoiced on a documented services basis only.

  4. 04

    No settlement language in pre-litigation communications.

    No communication originating from this office in advance of a filed action contains demand-for-payment language, settlement-amount estimates, or representations that any sum will resolve a matter. Pre-litigation communications, where they occur, are confined to factual notice of documented conditions and a request to remediate.

  5. 05

    No boilerplate complaints or undifferentiated barrier allegations.

    Every investigation file is built around plaintiff-specific injury and a barrier description tied to the investigator's documented disability. We do not produce undifferentiated barrier lists or generalized deterrence allegations of the kind flagged in Justice Thomas's concurrence in Acheson Hotels v. Laufer.

  6. 06

    No language that could constitute extortion under Cal. Penal Code §§ 518–519.

    No communication, web page, advertisement, or report produced by this office threatens the institution of litigation in exchange for payment, aggregates settlement values, or represents that a violation can be resolved by a private transfer.

  7. 07

    No third-party analytics or behavioral tracking on this website.

    Source-protection credibility requires it. This site uses no Google Analytics, no Meta Pixel, and no behavioral fingerprinting. Server access logs are retained only for the minimum period necessary to detect abuse.