Litigation-ready referrals.
Evidence first.

For consumers — your findings, your call

Most reporting errors resolve through disputes. Some don't — because they aren't clerical mistakes but potential violations: a discharged debt reported as owing, a "verified" answer contradicted by your own documents, an error that keeps coming back. Those can be worth an attorney's eyes, and consumer-protection law often makes such cases affordable to bring.

If your audit surfaces findings like that, you can choose to send your case package to a vetted firm. Before anything transmits, you see a consent screen with:

• the named firm — one firm per consent, never "our trusted partners";
• exactly what transmits — which findings, which report excerpts, nothing more;
• how they may contact you, what happens next, and the expected response time;
• an unchecked box only you can check — and consent is never required to use the audit;
• how to withdraw, any time.

Firms review case facts before they see your identity. And the self-serve path is always open: take your findings and file disputes yourself — the audit is yours either way.

For firms — what a referral package is

A VetMyCredit referral is not a lead-gen form fill. It's a screening workpaper built for counsel review:

• Document-backed findings only — each with a statutory screening reference (§1681e(b), §1681i(a), §1681s-2(b), §524(a)(2) overlays), a severity tier, and verbatim evidence spans with source hashes;
• held-vs-supported discipline — theories missing a legal predicate are listed as held, never inflated into findings;
• a clean chronology — dispute dates, response clocks, and correction states, reconstructed from dated documents;
• consented, declared-intent clients — every package exists because the consumer reviewed it and chose to send it to your firm specifically.

Engagement is flat-fee per referral package — never a share of recovery, never bulk data. Request the illustrative sample workpaper: hello@vetmycredit.com.