Law Firm Practice Page Review Checklist

Give the page one reader task

Write the question the visitor needs answered and the practical next step the firm can actually provide. Distinguish an explanation of the practice from advice about an individual matter. If two pages answer the same question with only a city name changed, identify the genuine difference before publishing another URL. An editor should be able to explain why each paragraph helps this particular reader.

Build a claim-to-evidence register

Mark every statement about the firm’s people, credentials, locations, service scope, availability, experience, fees or results. Assign a responsible person and a source for each claim. Do not turn draft notes into public facts merely because they sound credible. The register can stay private; the public page should present only information the firm is prepared to support.

• Claim: the exact sentence proposed for publication.
• Evidence: current business record or authoritative source.
• Owner: who can confirm accuracy and approve its use.
• Scope: jurisdiction, service and time period the evidence actually covers.
• Decision: publish, qualify, remove or hold pending review.

Separate editorial approval from professional review

A copy editor can improve clarity and check links. That does not establish the accuracy of a legal explanation or compliance with a jurisdiction’s professional-advertising rules. Assign those decisions to the firm’s appropriate responsible reviewer. Only display a reviewed-by name or credential when that person actually completed the described review and authorized the attribution. A blanket badge is not a review record.

Check advertising questions against the applicable regulator

Rules differ by jurisdiction and can change. Ontario firms can consult the Law Society of Ontario’s current marketing guidance and Chapter 4; other firms should identify their own regulator’s current rules. Treat credentials, comparisons, fee wording, testimonials and results language as review questions rather than copying another firm’s wording. This checklist does not certify that any wording is permitted.

Review the path from explanation to enquiry

Confirm that the visible contact instruction matches the actual process. A request for contact is not automatically an accepted retainer, a conflict check or a response within a promised time. Have the firm confirm the wording and avoid inviting confidential matter details through an unapproved channel. Check telephone and email links without submitting fictional legal matters or customer records.

Run the release checklist

Use a dated checklist before publication and repeat the technical checks on the live page. Google’s people-first content guidance emphasizes useful, reliable material; it does not make a publication checklist a ranking guarantee.

• One clear H1 and a unique, accurate title and description.
• Correct canonical URL and contextual links from the relevant hub.
• Current sources for substantive factual statements.
• Truthful visible authorship and matching structured data.
• Readable headings and contact instructions on a narrow screen.
• No copied private client details, invented results or unverified credentials.
• Named owner, approval date and next review trigger.

Use a review trigger instead of a cosmetic date change

Suppose a hypothetical firm changes which matters it accepts. Update the service explanation, intake instructions and relevant internal links together, then record what changed and who approved it. Do not merely advance the article’s date. Likewise, if a cited rule changes, reopen the affected explanation and its professional review. Keep unverified material on hold rather than assuming yesterday’s approval covers a different claim.