Compare firms
Rankings / Dilendorf Law Firm
06 Band 3

Dilendorf Law Firm

New York, United States · Founded 2017 · 10-15 team
CLBR index score
63/100

Founders bridging a US securities raise with EU MiCA CASP access who want both handled under one engagement.

Score breakdown · CLBR v1.0

Seven pillars, one score.

Licensing specialisation 15/22

Crypto practice anchored in US securities law with MiCA CASP as the secondary line — a focused profile, but not a pure-MiCA boutique. The smaller 10-15 person team caps the top band on dedicated crypto headcount, which holds this pillar to the mid-teens.

Jurisdictional coverage 11/18

Four EU regimes documented — Estonia, Lithuania, Cyprus, Malta — set against genuine reach into the US, BVI, Cayman and Switzerland. Useful for founders bridging US and EU operations, but the EU footprint is narrower than the specialist leaders'.

Licences secured 9/15

Eight-year practice with documented filings across both US securities and EU CASP regimes. Volume is estimated at 25-40 rather than published, so the count is credited on an established track record, not disclosed outcomes.

AML / DORA depth 7/13

Named US securities-law and AML experience is real, but direct EU-supervisor and DORA ICT-resilience exposure is lighter than at EU-based firms. Framed under AML/DORA depth, the bench reads US-strong and EU-thin.

Transparency 6/12

Standard US-firm disclosure. Pricing is not published, and some testimonials carry named sources. Enough named proof to clear the floor, but no fee bands or described methodology, so this stays low.

Post-licence support 7/10

Lifecycle is advisory-led rather than operational. Legal work through authorisation is covered in-house, while banking and corporate administration are referred to local counsel, which caps this pillar.

E-E-A-T 8/10

Named team page with credentials and a strong US legal-publication record. EU thought-leadership output is lighter than the European boutiques', so the authority signal is solid rather than top of pillar.

Where Dilendorf scores highest

Dilendorf scores highest on specialisation and its cross-Atlantic reach. It is the only US-headquartered firm reviewed that also handles MiCA CASP advisory, so a founder running a US securities raise and an EU authorisation can keep both on one engagement instead of coordinating two firms across the Atlantic.

The US securities-law overlay is the specific edge here. For token-offering work that has to satisfy US rules and European market access at once, that combined coverage is hard to match among EU-only boutiques.

Where Dilendorf is weaker

The weak points are published pricing and EU-regulator depth. Fees are quote-only, with no fee bands on the site, so cost comparison takes a conversation. The EU footprint runs to four documented regimes — Estonia, Lithuania, Cyprus and Malta — against the 14-plus at the European specialist leaders.

Delivery is advisory-led, too. Legal work through authorisation stays in-house, but banking and corporate administration are referred to local counsel, and the AML/DORA bench is stronger on US securities than on EU-supervisor and ICT-resilience files. For an EU-only project, a dedicated EU boutique scores better on both depth and lifecycle.

Dilendorf by jurisdiction

The US is home ground: the New York team handles securities analysis and token-offering structuring with the SEC in view. On the EU side, it files MiCA CASP work with the Bank of Lithuania and supports CASP authorisation in Estonia with Finantsinspektsioon, drawing on a four-regime shortlist built for founders who need a European entity alongside US operations.

Reviewed by Editorial team · Last updated 2026-07-14 · Scored on the CLBR rubric. Placement is editorial and never sold — see disclosure.