Law Firm Website Content Review Checklist

A stack of existing website pages passes through a magnifying lens. A separate new page waits behind a closed gate. First identify the reader need and check whether the existing inventory already answers it accurately. If it does, use the existing page; only a documented gap justifies briefing a new page. The mechanism prevents more pages from being treated as automatic improvement.

This clearly labelled fictional Ontario practice lists wills and estates with an estates lead lawyer, and business contracts with a business-law lead. An old Ontario immigration page remains in the inventory under the practice lead, but immigration work is no longer offered. The old page is flagged for review because its continued presence could imply service scope the fictional firm no longer has. These are invented teaching records, not claims about an actual firm.

Two page types have different jobs. A service page explains what the firm does and provides a contact route. An article explains one general subject or question. When two articles serve the same purpose, decide what to do with them before commissioning another. A general article should not assess the individual reader’s case or imply unsupported service scope.

The fictional page anatomy contains an accurate subject heading, the matters covered, relevant jurisdiction and a clear enquiry route. A procedural statement is assigned to a lawyer for review. A separate red exclusion area says that a guaranteed-win claim must be removed. The reader learns to replace a promised outcome with accurate scope and an appropriate next step; no actual legal procedure or expected result is asserted.

The fictional editorial inventory records the page path /services/wills/, the issue that a procedural timeframe is unverified, the estates lead lawyer as reviewer, and an action to confirm timing wording before use. No timeframe or legal rule is supplied. The unknown remains explicitly visible rather than being filled with plausible language. An unverified claim becomes an assigned review task.

A stylized anonymous profile sheet is connected to a separate evidence binder examined through a magnifying lens. Name and role point to the firm directory, a credential points to a current issuer record, and jurisdiction points to a regulator record. The path continues from evidence through responsible review to supported profile wording. The biography itself does not substantiate its own claims, and no actual person or credential is depicted.

The award-claim branch asks who issued the award, when it was awarded, the category and how its wording may be used. A separate comparison branch asks what supports the comparison. Either branch with missing evidence stays on hold before publication. The visual intentionally contains no award badge or invented achievement: evidence and permitted use come before the badge.

A publicly visible case page sits to the left of a closed, locked review barrier, with a possible marketing display beyond it. Public availability does not open that barrier. The review explicitly considers confidentiality, consent and professional obligations. The illustration does not adjudicate a real case or imply that one universal consent rule resolves all uses; the specific obligations and permission must be checked.

The timeline moves from a rule change to checking affected statements, recording who reviewed the content, and recording when that substantive review occurred. A separate failed route states that a changed timestamp alone is not an update. A last-reviewed date represents actual review work rather than cosmetic freshness; no specific rule change or date is invented.

The explicitly fictional page map shows one changed rule requiring review across an estate-planning guide, a wills service page and an estate-administration page that rely on it. The desktop view fans out to all three; the mobile view lists the same dependency set in reading order. Link the article to the relevant service while keeping the purposes of general information and service description distinct. No substantive legal rule is asserted.

A red TEST tag identifies invented submission details. Mobile and desktop form devices lead to the agreed recipient’s delivery tray. Check delivery and what the visitor sees after submitting. The form fields and intake notice require the firm’s approval before real use. The devices are conceptual illustrations, not real tool screenshots, and no real client data is used.

The priority stack places incorrect service information and broken contact routes first, because they can mislead visitors or prevent enquiries from arriving. Next clarify questions visitors should already be able to answer from the content. Consider low-risk topic expansion later. High traffic alone does not override the consequence of an issue or become the only review priority.

Three evidence lanes ask separate questions: search records show which page was found; content review checks whether it answers the reader’s question; aggregate intake evidence checks whether enquiries fit actual services. Dashed connectors indicate links that still need evidence, not an automatic progression. High traffic does not by itself prove suitable enquiries. Use aggregate evidence without client-identifiable details.