Two well-known personal injury law firms in the Boston area are locked in a fierce legal battle. The fight is over claims of stolen business secrets, broken trust, and unfair competition. At the heart of the dispute is one firm accusing the other of copying its unique business model.
Sokolove Law, a firm that became a pioneer in TV advertising and toll-free phone numbers back in the 1980s, is the one making the allegations. It has built a wide-reaching network with more than 140 co-counsel firms and recovered over $10 billion for clients nationwide. With a team of 64 employees, Sokolove operates a call center with over 100 agents trained in handling different kinds of injury cases.
Sokolove says Jason Stone Injury Lawyers and Keith Glover, a former employee, stole its “secret sauce.” Glover, once a mattress salesman turned legal operations professional, joined Stone’s firm in 2017. Sokolove claims Glover took their digital playbook with him when he left in 2015 and handed it over to Jason Stone, helping Stone’s firm quickly rise.
Jason Stone, however, denies any wrongdoing. Stone says his firm’s approach is very different and more focused on direct client representation rather than lead generation and telemarketing. They describe Sokolove’s lawsuit as part of an unfair campaign. Stone also points out that most of their income comes from actually representing clients, unlike Sokolove, which they describe as mostly earning from referrals.
Stone adds that Glover had permission from Sokolove to access files on his personal computer when he left, and that no trade secrets were used. The two firms even had a confidentiality agreement in early 2025, through which Stone says they proved they aren’t using Sokolove’s materials. Stone claims Sokolove used this agreement to dig for information just to file a lawsuit.
Since early 2025, Stone says Sokolove has been making public threats and false claims, suggesting that Stone uses aggressive telemarketing like Sokolove does. Stone says these actions caused them to lose market share and money.
At its core, this case sheds light on competition in the personal injury law space, especially the tension between traditional client-focused firms and those that lean heavily on marketing and referrals. Both firms stand firm, making this a case to watch as it unfolds in court.