Law Firm Website Launch Checklist

The visual mockup has passed a design gate. Five named review areas remain open: content statements, intake delivery, old URL mapping, task usability and release ownership. No total gate count is claimed. Approval of the look therefore does not establish launch readiness.

In the fictional navigation example, a visitor sees Employment law as a plain service label, opens the relevant subject lawyer profile, and reaches an enquiry action. Arrows show that service-to-lawyer-to-contact route in order. The contrasting internal label ER Dept. gives an unfamiliar visitor less context and should be replaced with plain service wording.

The first fictional location example has a physical office, a grounded location pin and an approved address record. The second shows only an area served, with no building or office pin. Before release, verify that location-page wording matches the firm’s actual presence instead of presenting a service area as a physical office.

A practice description goes to the subject lawyer. A profile title goes to the designated credential verifier. Contact details go to reception, and photography goes to a rights approver. These are responsibility assignments, not certifications that the content has passed. An unknown claim stays open for review against the relevant evidence and rules.

A fictional lawyer photograph needs its image-use rights checked while its caption needs correct identity and role. A tick in one column never fills the other. Confirm the right to use a photograph and the accuracy of its caption separately.

Fictional test details are submitted through an enquiry form. One branch verifies the agreed visitor acknowledgement, illustrated by a phone message. The other verifies actual delivery to the correct receiving team, illustrated by an envelope in an intake tray. A thank-you page with missing delivery is a failed test; both sides must be checked.

The example assigns phone enquiries to reception with published hours and a monitored-message fallback. Forms have an intake team, a response window and an agreed contact route. Chat has a monitor, staffed hours and a monitored-form fallback. These are example roles whose actual setup must be confirmed and tested. A booking request remains distinct from a confirmed booking.

In the fictional map, /contact remains /contact. The changed /employment-old address goes to the relevant /employment successor, and the redirect must be tested. The retired /retired-service address needs a reviewed retirement decision rather than an invented successor. Do not send every old address to an unrelated homepage.

The canonical signal identifies the preferred page address, internal links go to the intended page, and structured data reflects confirmed visible content. The triangle depicts consistency, not a promise that a search engine will select the preferred canonical or display a special result. An office invented only in structured data must be removed rather than presented as a fact.

The visual samples four different templates: a practice page, a lawyer profile, an article and a contact page. Each is shown at both a phone and desktop width. Check readable text, reachable controls and fixed buttons that do not cover content. A working homepage cannot establish that other templates or forms work, and these checks are not a full accessibility certification.

The keyboard sequence is navigation, labelled form fields, error feedback and submit. A blue focus outline shows the active email field, and a missing-email message explains what is wrong. The separate fictional issue example records Contact page, Submit not reachable, and Tab through the form. A useful issue report names the page, observed failure and repeatable steps instead of merely labelling the site inaccessible.

The release plan separates an approver who authorizes release, a deployer who makes the change, and a checker who tests the live journey. A vault containing a duplicate page represents a verified backup, with a closed gate before release. If an intake test fails, stop acceptance. The person explicitly authorized in the release plan decides whether to roll back.

A deployment timestamp indicates that a change was published. Completion still depends on successful live checks of key pages, contact delivery and tracking with test data. The final handoff names both a maintenance owner and an issue owner. A deployed timestamp alone is insufficient; verification and ongoing responsibility close the launch.