Diligence memo · auto-generated · as of July 2, 2026

Total Attorneys, Inc.

Total Attorneys, Inc. looks fair against its niche peers and is dormant on financing cadence.

DeprioritizeFinancing has gone silent well past the sector's normal cadence — treat as inactive until outside confirmation of a live operation.

Businessfiled

Total Attorneys, Inc. operates in Other, based in CHICAGO.

Sector still resolves to a broad 'Other' bucket, so operating comparables below are weaker than for a tightly-classified peer.

No verified homepage on file yet — operating evidence is limited to the public record.

Capital & rounds (filed)filed

Total Attorneys, Inc. has raised $31M in disclosed capital across 2 recorded rounds, aggregated from public filings. Its latest round is modeled as Series B (a $15M–$40M round).

Largest single filing: $16M on 2012-04-13.

Most recent recorded round closed around 2012-04-13.

Valuation (modeled)modeled

Provath models Total Attorneys, Inc. at approximately $267M (range $40M–$1.0B). This is an algorithmic estimate from round sizes and same-niche peers — not a quoted or reported figure.

Read: Fair. Modeled value is 0.73× the median modeled value of Series B Other companies in 2010–2012 (251 peers) — value vs value, same stage and era. Within the normal band (73% of peer median) for its niche.

Financing rhythm & timingmixed

Last raise 14.2 yr ago; this sector typically re-raises about every 11 months.

Silent for over 3× the sector's normal cadence.

The last round was 1.1× smaller than the prior — a bridge or down round.

Comparablesmixed

Capital scale ranks ahead of 90% of Other peers (25015 compared).

Modeled value ranks above 91% of those peers.

Closest niche peers: ATS Consolidated, Inc., Amber Holding Inc., Varsity AP Holdings LLC, Nordic Cold Storage Holdings, LLC, Nevsun Resources Ltd.

Peoplefiled

3 named people on file across officers, directors and signatories.

Risks & flagsmixed

Financing has been silent well beyond sector cadence — possibly defunct, acquired, or paused.

Broad sector classification weakens peer comparison.

No clearly named CEO/founder/principal in the surfaced records — key-person evidence is thin.