The Quintessa Marketing lawsuits fall into two groups: personal injury law firms that paid for leads and sued the company for breach of contract and fraud, and personal injury attorneys who sued Quintessa and its sister company McNeil Consultants for allegedly buying their trademarked names as Google ads and routing callers to a competing-firm call center. Some cases have been dismissed on procedural grounds, some have settled, and others remain active.
Who Quintessa Is
Quintessa Marketing LLC is an Oklahoma City legal marketing company founded in 2016 by Lauren Von Mingee. It sells pre-screened motor vehicle accident leads to personal injury firms on an exclusive basis, pitching what it calls the “MVA Retainer Engine” and claiming to generate more than 25,000 leads a month.1Quintessa Marketing. Quintessa Marketing Homepage Law firms pre-fund a marketing account, and Quintessa deducts a set fee per signed retainer. In the Hupy & Abraham contract the rates were $1,600 per qualifying motor vehicle accident retainer and $4,500 per qualifying commercial motor vehicle accident retainer.2Wisconsin Law Journal. Hupy Federal Lawsuit Complaint
Quintessa and a related entity, McNeil Consultants LLC, both do business under the trade name “Accident Injury Legal Center.” Mingee is the sole owner of both.3U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Jim S. Adler, P.C. v. McNeil Consultants, L.L.C., No. 20-10936 That overlap matters because the trademark cases name both companies.
Breach of Contract and Fraud Suits by Law Firm Clients
ERB Legal Investments (The Bradley Law Firm) v. Quintessa
In September 2020, ERB Legal Investments LLC, the parent of The Bradley Law Firm, sued Quintessa and Lauren Mingee in the Eastern District of Missouri over an April 2020 marketing agreement.4CourtListener. ERB Legal Investments, LLC v. Quintessa Marketing, LLC Docket ERB pre-funded a $50,000 account and alleged that Quintessa signed up prospects without properly verifying whether they had valid insurance claims. About 22 cases were unqualified, according to the complaint, and Quintessa billed for 111 leads when only 82 had actually been engaged.5Midpage. ERB Legal Investments, LLC v. Quintessa Marketing, LLC
ERB served notice of a material breach on July 17, 2020. Quintessa canceled the account six days later. ERB added a fraud count and tried to pierce the corporate veil to reach Mingee personally.6Justia. ERB Legal Investments, LLC v. Quintessa Marketing, LLC Memorandum and Order
In October 2021 the court dismissed the veil-piercing count and struck portions of the fraud claim that dealt with fabricated evidence and past misconduct, citing lack of specificity. The underlying breach of contract and fraud claims survived.6Justia. ERB Legal Investments, LLC v. Quintessa Marketing, LLC Memorandum and Order The docket shows the case terminated on May 11, 2023; the available filings do not say whether it ended in settlement, judgment, or something else.4CourtListener. ERB Legal Investments, LLC v. Quintessa Marketing, LLC Docket
Hupy & Abraham v. Quintessa
The Wisconsin firm Hupy & Abraham sued Quintessa in May 2021 in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, alleging breach of contract, deceptive trade practices, and overpromising on lead volume.7Wisconsin Law Journal. Hupy and Abraham Sues Marketing Company for Overpromising Leads, Breach of Contract Hupy pre-funded a $100,000 account after Quintessa’s Director of Business Operations, Mike Walker, allegedly represented that the company could deliver 100 or more signed retainers a month, with “150 to 200” “not out of the question.”2Wisconsin Law Journal. Hupy Federal Lawsuit Complaint
Over three months, Quintessa provided 146 retainers. Hupy counted 46 as qualified under the contract’s screening criteria. The firm alleged Quintessa failed to verify fault, property damage thresholds, and insurance coverage, and that some regular accident cases were mislabeled as commercial vehicle accidents to trigger the higher $4,500 fee. Hupy also claimed Quintessa refused to return $54,300 remaining in the pre-funded account and sought at least $100,000 in compensatory damages.8ProQuest. Hupy and Abraham, S.C. v. Quintessa Marketing
The case did not reach the merits in Wisconsin. Quintessa invoked the contract’s arbitration and forum-selection clauses, which required disputes to be arbitrated in Oklahoma City or litigated in Oklahoma County state court. The court found the clauses enforceable, rejected Hupy’s unconscionability arguments, and dismissed the case without prejudice on forum non conveniens grounds.9Midpage. Hupy & Abraham, S.C. v. Quintessa LLC That outcome is itself useful information for firms considering a Quintessa contract: disputes have to be fought in Oklahoma.
Trademark Infringement Suits by Personal Injury Attorneys
A second group of plaintiffs is not Quintessa’s customers but its alleged targets. Several personal injury attorneys say Quintessa and McNeil Consultants bought their trademarked names as Google keyword ads and used generic click-to-call ads to funnel searchers to a call center that connected them to competing firms.
Jim Adler v. McNeil Consultants and Quintessa
Jim Adler, the Texas attorney known as “The Texas Hammer,” sued McNeil Consultants, Quintessa Marketing, and Lauren Von McNeil in the Northern District of Texas in 2019. He alleged the defendants bought “Jim Adler,” “The Hammer,” “The Texas Hammer,” and “El Martillo Tejano” as Google keywords, then ran click-to-call ads that connected callers to a call center where employees used vague greetings and avoided identifying their employer, giving the impression the caller had reached Adler’s firm.3U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Jim S. Adler, P.C. v. McNeil Consultants, L.L.C., No. 20-10936
The district court first dismissed the complaint, reasoning that because the ads did not visibly display Adler’s trademarks, there could be no likelihood of confusion. The Fifth Circuit reversed in August 2021, holding that invisible keyword use does not automatically defeat an infringement claim and that Adler’s specific allegations about the call center’s practices had to be taken seriously. The case was remanded.3U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Jim S. Adler, P.C. v. McNeil Consultants, L.L.C., No. 20-10936
On remand, a magistrate judge issued recommendations in July 2023 that narrowed the case. The court recommended summary judgment for the defendants on dilution, misappropriation, and tortious interference, finding no evidence of tarnishment, no standalone misappropriation claim under Texas law, and insufficient proof of specific disrupted contracts. The court noted that of 1,595 call-log entries mentioning Adler between 2018 and 2021, only 94 were actual leads processed through Quintessa’s competitive bidding campaign. Summary judgment was denied on disgorgement of profits, leaving the core infringement claim alive.10GovInfo. Jim S. Adler, P.C. v. McNeil Consultants, LLC, Findings and Recommendations
Sibrian v. McNeil Consultants and Quintessa
Houston attorney Hilda Sibrian filed a similar case in the Southern District of Texas in 2023, alleging the defendants bought “Hilda Sibrian” and related firm names as Google keywords and used click-to-call ads to redirect her prospective clients.11GovInfo. Sibrian v. McNeil Consultants, LLC, Memorandum and Order
In May 2024, Judge Lee Rosenthal partially granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Claims for misappropriation, tortious interference, and all claims against Lauren Mingee individually were dismissed without prejudice, and the Law Offices’ trademark claims were dismissed for lack of standing because the registered marks belonged to Sibrian personally. Sibrian’s individual claims for federal and state trademark infringement, Lanham Act unfair competition, and unjust enrichment were allowed to proceed.11GovInfo. Sibrian v. McNeil Consultants, LLC, Memorandum and Order The parties settled in September 2024 on undisclosed terms, according to a Law360 report.12Law360. Texas Firm, Marketing Biz Settle Click To Call Ad Scheme Suit
Newer Filings
Two more recent complaints suggest Quintessa’s litigation exposure is still growing. In December 2024, Kelly Pinn filed a complaint with jury demand against Quintessa LLC and the Slocumb Law Firm LLC in the Northern District of Texas.13PACER Monitor. Pinn v. Quintessa LLC et al, Complaint With Jury Demand In November 2025, Kelly Bland filed a complaint in the Western District of Oklahoma against Quintessa LLC, IWDLLC LLC, InfoWorx Direct LLC, and Ronald Perlstein, brought individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, which points to a possible class action.14PACER Monitor. Bland et al v. Quintessa LLC et al, Complaint The detailed allegations in these two cases are not available in the records reviewed here.
What the Pattern Shows
Across the cases, the same complaints recur: leads that did not meet the contract’s screening criteria, pre-funded account balances the firms say were not returned, and advertising practices that attorneys say used their names to pull callers to a competing operation. Firms that signed Quintessa’s standard contract have also found that forum and arbitration clauses push disputes to Oklahoma rather than their home courts, as Hupy & Abraham discovered. For attorneys who believe their marks are being bought as keywords, the Fifth Circuit’s Adler decision is the clearest statement in this litigation that invisible keyword use is not a free pass, though the Adler trial-court record also shows how hard it can be to tie a large call-log database to a provable volume of diverted clients.