Merchant Cash Advance National Defense:

The Strategic Framework

A Comprehensive Guide to MCA Lawsuit Defense, Loan Recharacterization, and Usury Protection for Business Owners Nationwide

MCA Defense Without Borders: A New Standard for Business Debt Protection

If you are a business owner facing an aggressive Merchant Cash Advance (MCA) lawsuit, the traditional “local lawyer” approach is no longer sufficient. Most local attorneys specialize in general litigation or personal bankruptcy—not the highly technical world of MCA loan recharacterization and usury defense. The difference between a general practitioner and a specialist in this area can mean the difference between losing your business bank account overnight and having a predatory contract voided entirely.

In 2026, the legal landscape has shifted permanently. MCA funders have weaponized “Jurisdictional Arbitrage,” filing lawsuits in specific pro-lender courts in New York, Florida, or Utah, regardless of where your business is physically located. This creates a “defense gap” where a local attorney in your home state may be powerless to stop a bank levy or a UCC-1 lien originating from a court thousands of miles away. A funder in New York can file a Confession of Judgment (COJ), obtain a default judgment in a matter of days, and domesticate that judgment in your home state—freezing your operating account before you even know a lawsuit exists.

At Credible Law, we have pioneered a Centralized Defense Hub model based in San Diego that architects the legal strategy for businesses in all 50 states. We don’t just “refer” your case; we engineer the defense in our San Diego hub and execute it through a high-precision network of localized legal experts who understand how to apply the latest 2026 standards. This model ensures that whether your funder files in Manhattan, Miami, or Salt Lake City, you have a coordinated, nationally informed defense strategy that leverages every available protection.

Understanding the MCA Industry in 2026: Why Merchants Are More Vulnerable Than Ever

The merchant cash advance industry has experienced explosive growth over the past decade, fueled by the increasing demand for fast, accessible business capital from small and mid-sized enterprises that struggle to qualify for traditional bank loans. MCA providers market their products as simple purchases of future receivables—not loans—which has historically allowed them to sidestep state usury laws and lending regulations. However, the reality on the ground is far more complicated, and in 2026, that distinction is under attack in courtrooms across the country.

Default rates on high-cost merchant cash advances have climbed significantly over the past twelve months, driven in part by the practice of “stacking”—where a single business takes on three, five, or even eight simultaneous MCA agreements from different funders. Each funder withdraws a fixed daily amount from the merchant’s bank account via ACH debit, and when revenue dips even slightly, the combined withdrawals can drain the account entirely. The merchant defaults on one agreement, which triggers cross-default provisions in the others, creating a cascading financial crisis that leaves the business unable to operate.

This is not an edge case. It is the dominant pattern in MCA litigation in 2026. The funders know it, the courts are beginning to acknowledge it, and new laws in multiple states are designed specifically to address it. If you are caught in this cycle, you need to understand that you may have far more legal options than the funder wants you to believe.

The 2026 Merchant Defense Reality: The FAIR Act Impact

As of February 17, 2026, the New York FAIR Business Practices Act (Fostering Affordability and Integrity through Reasonable Business Practices Act) has officially broadened the Attorney General’s power to target “unfair” and “abusive” business acts. This is a game-changer for MCA defense. Signed by Governor Hochul on December 19, 2025, this represents the first major update to New York’s consumer protection statute (General Business Law § 349) in 45 years. For the first time, New York law explicitly prohibits business-to-business (B2B) practices that are “abusive”—defined as taking unreasonable advantage of a merchant’s lack of understanding regarding the terms and conditions of the financing.

Under this new enforcement regime, multiple critical changes directly affect MCA litigation:

Physical Presence No Longer Required: Companies—including banks, fintechs, and MCA funders—do not need a physical presence in New York to fall within the AG’s enforcement jurisdiction if they are transacting with New York-based entities or using New York courts. Conversely, the AG can now pursue New York-based funders for abusive conduct directed at merchants in any state. This extraterritorial reach is unprecedented and gives the AG the ability to police MCA practices on a near-national scale.

The “Deception” Threshold is Gone: Previously, the state had to prove a funder was deceptive. Now, they only need to prove a practice is unfair (causes substantial injury that is not reasonably avoidable and not outweighed by countervailing benefits) or abusive (exploits a merchant’s situation or interferes with their ability to understand contract terms). This is a dramatically lower bar for enforcement, and it applies to the kinds of opaque factor rate disclosures and illusory reconciliation clauses found in the vast majority of MCA contracts.

Vacatur of Judgments: This act provides a statutory bridge to vacate older Confessions of Judgment (COJs) that were obtained through abusive “stacking” or predatory litigation tactics. If a funder obtained a COJ-based judgment by exploiting your lack of understanding of the contract terms, the FAIR Act gives your attorney a powerful new argument for having that judgment set aside—even if it was entered months or years ago.

Business and Nonprofit Protection: The FAIR Act explicitly extends protection to businesses and nonprofit organizations, not just individual consumers. The legislature recognized that a small business owner may be just as vulnerable to unfair or abusive practices as a consumer, and the statute was drafted to close the gap that previously left commercial transactions outside the AG’s protective reach.

The Yellowstone Capital Precedent: What It Means for Your Case

The New York Attorney General’s landmark settlement with Yellowstone Capital, which resulted in over $534 million in cancelled MCA-style debt and the obligation to vacate collection lawsuits and terminate liens for qualifying merchants, has fundamentally changed the calculus for MCA defense. This was not a theoretical exercise—it was a massive, real-world enforcement action that demonstrated the state’s willingness to pursue funders who engage in predatory practices.

The Yellowstone case established several principles that are now being applied broadly in MCA defense nationwide. First, it confirmed that the AG will treat MCA agreements that function as loans as loans, regardless of how the contract is labeled. Second, it demonstrated that merchants who paid more to the funder than they received—which is the case for nearly every defaulted MCA—may be entitled to restitution. Third, it showed that liens filed under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC-1 filings) in connection with abusive MCA practices can be terminated through enforcement action.

If you have an existing judgment or UCC lien from an MCA funder, the Yellowstone precedent may provide a pathway to relief that did not exist even twelve months ago.

Key Insight: Recharacterization in the 2026 Bankruptcy Courts

In a landmark ruling, In re Greenwich Retail Group LLC (February 20, 2026), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York delivered a major blow to the MCA industry. Judge Michael E. Wiles denied motions to dismiss filed by four MCA funders, preserving the merchant’s claims that their MCA agreements were actually disguised usurious loans. The ruling is analytically rigorous and addresses several unsettled questions at the intersection of fraudulent transfer law, New York usury doctrine, and MCA litigation.

The merchants in the Greenwich Retail case faced MCA agreements with implied annual percentage rates ranging from approximately 65% to over 132%. The court accepted the debtor’s novel “waiver-as-fraudulent-transfer” theory and preserved claims for recovery of all prior payments through the bankruptcy process. This ruling has immediate implications for any business owner whose MCA agreements carry similarly excessive effective interest rates.

Our team specializes in leveraging the “Three-Factor Test” reinforced by this ruling and others to prove that your “advance” was a loan in disguise:

Reconciliation: Is there a mandatory, automated process to adjust payments based on your actual sales? If the reconciliation is “illusory” or “at the funder’s discretion,” the court may rule it a loan. In practice, the overwhelming majority of MCA contracts either lack a meaningful reconciliation mechanism entirely or include one that the funder has never honored. Courts are increasingly treating the absence of genuine, functioning reconciliation as the single strongest indicator that the transaction is a loan, not a sale of receivables.

Fixed Repayment Term: Does the contract have an end date or a daily payment that never changes regardless of your revenue? A true purchase of future receivables should have no fixed end date—the funder is buying a percentage of sales, and the timeline for full repayment depends entirely on business performance. If the contract specifies a fixed payback period or the daily debit amount is calculated to achieve repayment within a predetermined number of months, this undermines the “sale” characterization.

Recourse: Does the funder have a way to collect regardless of whether your business succeeds (such as a personal guaranty that triggers upon a mere “slowdown” of sales)? In a genuine receivables purchase, the funder assumes the risk that the business may not generate sufficient revenue. If the contract gives the funder recourse against the owner personally—especially through broadly drafted personal guarantees, confessions of judgment, or acceleration clauses triggered by anything short of the business’s total cessation—courts are far more likely to treat it as a loan.

When these triggers are present, the contract is no longer a purchase of future receivables—it is a loan subject to state usury caps. In New York, that means the civil usury cap of 16% under General Obligations Law § 5-501 and the criminal usury felony threshold of 25% under Penal Law § 190.40. When your MCA carries an effective APR of 65%, 100%, or higher, the legal exposure for the funder is enormous.

The “Hub & Spoke” System & Jurisdictional Battlegrounds

How Our National Referral Network Outperforms Traditional Firms

Most law firms are limited by the physical location and specific bar admissions of their staff. Credible Law operates as a Strategic Referral Network, which allows us to pair you with the absolute best “boots on the ground” in every major litigation jurisdiction without sacrificing the high-level strategy developed in our San Diego hub. This model is particularly critical in MCA defense because funders deliberately exploit jurisdictional complexity—filing in courts where they know the local rules and practices favor them, often thousands of miles from your place of business.

Step 1: Forensic Audit & Strategy Architecture (San Diego Hub)

Every case begins with our proprietary 2026 MCA Reconciliation Audit. We don’t just look at your contract; we analyze your daily bank activity to identify where the funder failed to adjust your payments. In 2026, the failure to provide a “mandatory reconciliation” is the number one reason MCA contracts are being tossed out of court. We build the “Weaponized Audit” that your local counsel will use to force a settlement or dismissal.

The reconciliation audit compares the contractual percentage of receivables the funder was entitled to collect against the actual amounts withdrawn via ACH debit. In case after case, we find that funders withdrew fixed daily amounts that bore no relationship to the merchant’s actual sales volume. When sales dropped, the withdrawals stayed the same. When a merchant requested an adjustment, the funder either ignored the request or imposed conditions so burdensome that adjustment was effectively impossible. This pattern of behavior is precisely the kind of evidence that courts rely on when recharacterizing an MCA as a loan.

Step 2: Strategic Partner Activation

If your file escalates to a court summons or an active bank levy, we activate a vetted partner from our elite network. These aren’t “general” lawyers; they are MCA Defense Specialists who have handled hundreds of cases in your specific court. For example:

In New York: We use partners skilled in leveraging GOL § 5-501 (16% civil usury) and Penal Law 190.40 (25% criminal usury felony) to void contracts entirely. New York remains the epicenter of MCA litigation, and our network includes attorneys who have successfully vacated COJ-based judgments, defeated motions to confirm arbitration awards in MCA cases, and obtained affirmative relief for merchants through counterclaims based on usury and the new FAIR Act standards.

In Texas: We utilize SB 2221 (Effective September 2025), which allows for the administrative termination of fraudulent UCC-1 liens via a sworn affidavit to the Secretary of State, bypassing months of expensive litigation. Texas has also introduced registration and disclosure requirements for sales-based financing providers, creating bright-line compliance violations that can be leveraged in settlement negotiations.

In California: Our San Diego-based team has deep expertise in SB 362 (California Commercial Financing Disclosure Law) and the broader regulatory framework that requires funders to provide transparent disclosure of financing terms, including estimated annual percentage rates, to California-based merchants. Violations of these disclosure requirements provide independent grounds for challenging the enforceability of MCA agreements.

In Florida: Florida has become an increasingly active jurisdiction for MCA filings, and our network includes attorneys experienced in challenging venue selection, contesting personal jurisdiction arguments, and leveraging Florida’s commercial litigation procedures to protect merchant assets during the pendency of litigation.

Step 3: Unified Oversight & Ethics Compliance

Credible Law remains your primary advocate and “General Counsel.” We manage the communication, oversee the local counsel’s filings, and ensure that the 2026 California SB 362 transparency standards are being leveraged. By acting as the central hub, we ensure that your defense is consistent, ethical, and focused on one goal: protecting your business assets. This unified oversight model also prevents the common problem of fragmented representation, where different attorneys in different states pursue inconsistent strategies that undermine each other.

State-by-State Defense Strategies & High-Activity Zones

Where We Fight: Our 2026 High-Activity Defense Zones

While we serve all 50 states, five jurisdictions have become the primary battlegrounds for MCA litigation in 2026. Our local partnerships in these states are designed to address the specific statutes, court rules, and judicial tendencies in each region.

New York: The Epicenter of MCA Litigation

New York remains the single most important jurisdiction in MCA defense. The vast majority of MCA contracts designate New York as the governing law and preferred venue, and most COJs are filed in New York courts. Our New York partners leverage the civil usury cap under GOL § 5-501, the criminal usury provisions under Penal Law § 190.40, the new FAIR Act standards, and the Yellowstone Capital precedent to build comprehensive defense strategies. The Greenwich Retail ruling provides additional ammunition for merchants seeking recharacterization of their MCA agreements as usurious loans.

California: Disclosure Law and Asset Protection

California’s SB 362 (Commercial Financing Disclosure Law) requires MCA funders to provide detailed disclosures to California merchants, including estimated APR equivalents. Our San Diego hub specializes in identifying disclosure violations and using them to challenge the enforceability of MCA agreements. California also offers robust asset protection mechanisms that can be deployed to prevent out-of-state judgments from being domesticated and enforced against California-based business accounts.

Texas: Administrative Lien Termination

Texas SB 2221 introduced a streamlined process for terminating fraudulent UCC-1 liens through administrative filings with the Secretary of State. This bypasses the traditional litigation pathway entirely and can result in lien removal in weeks rather than months. Additionally, Texas HB 700 creates a registration and conduct regime for sales-based financing providers, with the Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner empowered to license providers and ban confession-of-judgment style clauses.

Florida: Venue Challenges and Asset Protection

Florida has emerged as a secondary filing jurisdiction for MCA funders seeking favorable treatment. Our Florida partners specialize in challenging improper venue selection, contesting personal jurisdiction, and utilizing Florida’s homestead and asset protection exemptions to shield business owners’ personal assets from MCA-related judgments.

Utah: Federal Preemption and Rent-a-Charter Defense

Utah has become a focal point for “rent-a-charter” MCA models, where out-of-state funders partner with Utah-chartered banks to claim federal preemption of state usury laws. However, the Tenth Circuit’s Weiser ruling has narrowed federal usury preemption and allows opt-out states to apply their own interest caps even against out-of-state state-chartered banks. Our Utah-focused defense strategies leverage this precedent to challenge the preemption argument that many funders rely on.

The MCA Defense Playbook — What to Do When You’re Sued

Immediate Steps When You Receive an MCA Lawsuit or Bank Levy

If you have been served with a lawsuit or had your bank account frozen in connection with a merchant cash advance, time is your most critical resource. The following steps should be taken immediately:

Do Not Ignore the Lawsuit: Failing to respond to a lawsuit can result in a default judgment, meaning the funder automatically wins the case. If you have been served with legal papers, contact a specialized MCA defense attorney immediately. Every jurisdiction has strict deadlines for responding, and missing these deadlines can permanently limit your options.

Gather Your Documentation: Collect your MCA agreement, all amendments and modifications, bank statements covering the entire period of the MCA relationship, payment history, emails and text messages with the funder or broker, and any correspondence regarding reconciliation requests or disputes. These documents are the foundation of your defense.

Stop Communicating Directly with the Funder: Once you have retained counsel, all communications should go through your attorney. Anything you say directly to the funder or their attorneys can be used against you. Funders and their collection counsel are experienced at extracting admissions from unrepresented merchants during informal conversations.

Protect Your Operating Accounts: If your account has not yet been frozen, consult with your attorney about protective measures. If a freeze is already in place, your attorney can file an emergency motion to release funds necessary for business operations. Time-sensitive motions for emergency relief are a critical part of MCA defense, and experienced counsel can often obtain expedited hearings.

The Reconciliation Defense: Your Most Powerful Weapon in 2026

The reconciliation defense has emerged as the single most effective weapon in MCA litigation in 2026. Here is why it matters and how we deploy it.

Every MCA contract purports to be a purchase of a percentage of future receivables. This means that if your sales drop by 30%, your daily payment to the funder should drop by 30% as well. The mechanism for making this adjustment is called “reconciliation.” In theory, the merchant can request a reconciliation, the funder reviews the merchant’s actual sales data, and the daily withdrawal amount is adjusted to reflect the contractual percentage.

In practice, reconciliation almost never happens. Funders either ignore reconciliation requests entirely, impose conditions so burdensome that no merchant can satisfy them (such as requiring 90 days of bank statements, tax returns, and a formal written request with a waiting period), or flatly deny requests based on vague “discretionary” language in the contract. The result is that the merchant pays a fixed amount regardless of actual sales—which is, by definition, the hallmark of a loan repayment, not a receivables purchase.

Our proprietary 2026 MCA Reconciliation Audit quantifies this discrepancy with precision. We compare the funder’s actual withdrawals against the merchant’s actual daily sales, calculate the effective repayment percentage, and demonstrate to the court exactly how much the funder over-collected. In many cases, the effective daily withdrawal represents 25%, 30%, or even 50% of gross daily revenue—far in excess of the contractual percentage—and the funder made no effort to adjust. This evidence is devastating in court.

Confessions of Judgment, UCC Liens, and Sister-State Judgments

Understanding Confessions of Judgment (COJs) in 2026

A Confession of Judgment is a legal instrument, typically signed as part of the MCA agreement, in which the merchant authorizes the funder to obtain a court judgment without prior notice or an opportunity to be heard. In plain terms, it means the funder can walk into court, file the COJ, and walk out with a judgment against your business—often within 24 to 48 hours—without you ever knowing it happened.

While New York banned the use of COJs against out-of-state merchants in 2019, many merchants signed MCA agreements containing COJs before the ban took effect, and some funders continue to attempt to use them through creative structuring. The FAIR Act and the Yellowstone Capital settlement have created new pathways to vacate COJ-based judgments that were obtained through abusive practices, even if the COJ was technically valid at the time it was filed.

UCC-1 Liens: How Funders Lock Up Your Business Assets

Most MCA agreements authorize the funder to file a UCC-1 financing statement, which places a lien on the business’s assets—including accounts receivable, inventory, equipment, and in some cases, all personal property of the business. This lien gives the funder priority over other creditors and can prevent the merchant from obtaining additional financing, selling assets, or even operating normally.

In many cases, funders file blanket UCC-1 liens that are far broader than what the MCA agreement actually authorizes. In Texas, SB 2221 now allows for the administrative termination of fraudulent or unauthorized UCC-1 filings through a sworn affidavit, providing a fast and cost-effective remedy. In other states, our network attorneys file motions to release or modify UCC liens as part of the broader defense strategy.

Sister-State Judgments: When an Out-of-State Funder Freezes Your Local Bank Account

One of the most devastating tactics used by MCA funders is the domestication of a New York judgment in the merchant’s home state. This process, known as filing a “Sister-State Judgment,” allows a funder who obtained a judgment in New York (often through a COJ) to register that judgment in California, Texas, Florida, or any other state and immediately begin enforcement proceedings, including bank account freezes and asset levies.

As of 2026, we have new tools to challenge these judgments. If the original contract violated the California Commercial Financing Disclosure Law (SB 362), if the judgment was obtained through a process that would be considered “abusive” under the FAIR Act, or if the underlying MCA agreement can be recharacterized as a usurious loan, your attorney can file a motion to vacate the sister-state judgment or stay its enforcement pending challenge of the underlying obligation. Our San Diego-based team specializes in blocking these freezes before they hit your local branch.

Bankruptcy as a Strategic Tool in MCA Defense

Chapter 11 as an Offensive Weapon Against Predatory MCA Debt

For many business owners, the word “bankruptcy” carries a stigma that prevents them from exploring what may be their most powerful legal option. In the MCA context, Chapter 11 bankruptcy is not about giving up—it is about taking control. The Greenwich Retail Group ruling demonstrates exactly how Chapter 11 can be used offensively to challenge MCA agreements, recover prior payments, and restructure debt on terms that allow the business to survive.

When a business files for Chapter 11, an automatic stay goes into effect immediately. This means that all collection activity—including bank levies, UCC lien enforcement, and pending lawsuits—must stop. The funder cannot withdraw money from your account, cannot enforce a COJ-based judgment, and cannot continue litigation against you without permission from the bankruptcy court.

More importantly, Chapter 11 gives the debtor-in-possession (the business owner operating under bankruptcy protection) the ability to bring adversary proceedings against MCA funders. These proceedings can seek to recharacterize MCA agreements as loans, void usurious contracts, recover payments already made under fraudulent transfer theories, and subordinate or eliminate the funder’s claims entirely. The Greenwich Retail ruling confirms that these claims are viable and can survive motions to dismiss.

When Bankruptcy Is and Is Not the Right Strategy

Bankruptcy is a powerful tool, but it is not appropriate for every situation. Our team evaluates each case individually and recommends bankruptcy only when the legal and financial analysis supports it. In some cases, the reconciliation defense and usury arguments are strong enough to achieve a favorable settlement or dismissal without the complexity and cost of a bankruptcy filing. In others—particularly where the merchant faces multiple stacked MCAs, active bank levies, and aggressive litigation in multiple jurisdictions simultaneously—Chapter 11 may be the fastest and most effective path to comprehensive relief.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for 2026 MCA Defense

Do I need a different lawyer in every state?

No. When you hire Credible Law, we handle the complexities of multijurisdictional practice. We pair our national strategy with a local attorney of record, ensuring you have the highest level of protection without the headache of managing multiple firms. Our centralized hub model means you have one point of contact, one coordinated strategy, and local execution in every jurisdiction where your case requires a presence.

Can a New York funder freeze my bank account in California?

Yes, via a “Sister-State Judgment.” However, as of 2026, we have new tools to challenge these judgments if the original contract violated the California Commercial Financing Disclosure Law (SB 362) or if the judgment was obtained through abusive practices that would now violate the FAIR Act. Our San Diego-based team specializes in blocking these freezes before they hit your local branch.

What if I already have a judgment against me?

In 2026, a judgment is not the end of the road. With the FAIR Act and the Greenwich Retail precedent, we can often move to vacate judgments that were based on usurious contracts or abusive litigation practices. The specific pathway depends on the jurisdiction where the judgment was entered, the circumstances under which it was obtained, and the terms of the underlying MCA agreement.

What is the difference between an MCA and a loan?

A true MCA is a purchase of a percentage of future receivables, where the funder assumes the risk that the business may not generate sufficient revenue to repay the advance. A loan, by contrast, involves a fixed repayment obligation regardless of business performance. When an MCA contract lacks genuine reconciliation, imposes fixed repayment terms, and gives the funder recourse against the owner personally through broad guarantees and COJs, courts are increasingly ruling that the transaction is a loan—subject to state usury laws.

How long does the defense process typically take?

Timelines vary depending on the complexity of the case, the jurisdiction, and the funder’s litigation posture. Emergency matters such as bank account freezes can often be addressed within days. Settlement negotiations typically take 30 to 90 days. Full litigation, including motions to dismiss, discovery, and trial, can take six months to over a year. Bankruptcy proceedings operate on their own timeline, but the automatic stay provides immediate relief from collection activity.

What does it cost to defend against an MCA lawsuit?

Defense costs depend on the scope and complexity of the case. Our initial 2026 Case Audit is free and provides you with a clear assessment of your legal options, the strength of your defenses, and a realistic estimate of costs. We work with clients to structure fee arrangements that are proportional to the relief being sought and sustainable for the business.

Can I settle my MCA debt for less than what I owe?

Yes. In many cases, particularly where the reconciliation defense or usury arguments are strong, funders are willing to negotiate significant reductions. The strength of your legal position directly affects your leverage in settlement negotiations, which is why having a comprehensive defense strategy—even if the goal is settlement—is essential.

What is MCA stacking and why is it dangerous?

Stacking occurs when a business takes on multiple MCA agreements from different funders simultaneously. Each funder withdraws a daily or weekly amount from your bank account, and when revenue dips, the combined withdrawals can exceed your daily revenue—draining your account and triggering defaults across all agreements. Stacking is one of the primary drivers of MCA litigation in 2026, and it is one of the practices that the FAIR Act is designed to address.

Take the First Step: Protect Your Business Today

Don’t let an out-of-state lawsuit paralyze your business operations. The MCA defense landscape in 2026 offers more protection, more legal tools, and more precedent in favor of merchants than at any point in the industry’s history. The FAIR Act, the Greenwich Retail ruling, the Yellowstone Capital settlement, the Weiser preemption precedent, and new state-level registration and disclosure laws have collectively shifted the balance of power away from predatory funders and toward business owners who are willing to fight back.

Get the power of a national legal referral network on your side. Our 2026 Case Audit is free, confidential, and designed to give you a clear picture of your legal options within 48 hours.

START YOUR FREE 2026 CASE AUDIT

Or Call Our National Defense Hotline: (888) 201-0441

Disclaimer: Credible Law is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice. We are a news and legal referral source that connects users with independent, licensed attorneys or law firms. No attorney–client relationship is formed by using this site, reading our content, or contacting us. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.