Insurance professionals often critical of personal injury firms targeting insurance companies may enjoy watching this unusual legal showdown—because this time, two prominent Boston-area injury law firms are suing each other.

The dispute involves accusations of trade secret misappropriation, disloyalty, collusion, unfair competition, and more. At the heart of the battle is one firm’s claim that the other copied its successful nationwide business strategy. The accused firm, however, denies any wrongdoing and argues that it wouldn’t even want to operate the way its rival does.

On one side is Sokolove Law, a pioneer in legal marketing since the 1980s, known for advertising on television and utilizing a toll-free number. The firm has represented thousands of clients across the U.S., recovering over $10 billion. Today, Sokolove employs 64 people and works with over 140 co-counsel firms nationwide.

“This lawsuit is about the outright theft of a proven business model,” Sokolove stated in its complaint filed in August. The firm alleges that Jason Stone Injury Lawyers built its recent growth not on innovation or effort, but by improperly using Sokolove’s proprietary methods and internal knowledge.

Opposing the claims are Jason Stone Injury Lawyers and Keith Glover, a former Sokolove staffer who joined Stone in 2017. Sokolove claims that when Glover left the firm in 2015, he took with him the operational strategies that fueled Sokolove’s growth—its so-called “secret sauce.”

Stone refutes the allegations and insists his firm operates completely differently. He characterizes Sokolove as more of a telemarketing and client referral enterprise than a conventional law firm, and says his business is based on direct client representation.

Sokolove argues that Glover, who once sold mattresses, was trained in the firm’s proprietary systems and rose to a high-paying operational role. According to the lawsuit, he later shared Sokolove’s digital strategy and processes with Stone after becoming Stone’s director of operations.

Sokolove’s approach centers around a large co-counsel network that leverages its strength in marketing, client intake, customer service, and claim management. The firm also runs a remote call center with over 100 trained agents, managing campaigns in areas such as birth injuries, workplace accidents, disability claims, lung cancer, PFAS foam exposure, nursing home neglect, and more.

Jason Stone has responded by filing a counterclaim, rejecting all allegations of trade secret theft and accusing Sokolove of engaging in deceptive and unethical conduct.

According to Stone, Glover had explicit permission to take files with him when he left Sokolove a decade ago. Stone also asserts that its firm has never used any proprietary material from Sokolove and that Sokolove cannot prove otherwise.

Stone adds that in early 2025, the two firms had entered into a confidentiality agreement, during which Stone provided evidence that it was not using any of Sokolove’s materials. Stone now claims Sokolove misused that agreement as a trap to collect information for a future lawsuit.

Stone further distinguishes itself by stating that, unlike Sokolove, it does not operate a call center or rely heavily on referrals. The firm claims that over 97% of its revenue comes from actual client representation, whereas Sokolove earns the vast majority of its income through its referral network.

Stone also alleges that as its presence in Massachusetts grew in early 2025, Sokolove began attacking its business through intimidation and false accusations, claiming Stone engaged in the same telemarketing tactics as Sokolove.

Stone argues that these alleged actions have caused significant financial harm, resulting in lost market share that the firm believes it would have retained if Sokolove had been transparent about how its business truly operates.

“Understandably, when given full information, clients looking for legal help would prefer a law firm—not a telemarketing operation,” Stone claims.

The courtroom battle is still unfolding, but it’s clear that this legal face-off between two major players in personal injury law is about more than just trade secrets—it’s also about reputation, business models, and the future of how legal services are marketed and delivered.