Templates and checklists

B.1 Singapore law-firm source list

What you'll do in this section: copy the three tables below into your Citation-slot table, row by row — contact, payment/billing, compliance verdict and priority map straight onto the matching fields — and work each row the way the figure below reads it. Where the compliance verdict says "not yet", ask two things in writing before you come back to judge it. The tables name no law firm, and you may not add one.

How the verdict is reached: see the decision diagram in chapter 6, 6.3; the three tables are the result of judging every site against that diagram, site by site. The law-firm verdict adds two rules on top of → General Edition 6.4 Three source groups, and the Group B actions.

First, the question "Does it refer, assign or match cases?" comes before the question about the title. Never pay or join any platform that refers clients to law firms, whether it charges per lead, per completed engagement, by commission or by a fixed entry fee. Paying per lead, per completed engagement or by commission hits r 39(2)(b) "must not reward the referror by the payment of any commission or other form of consideration;" and GN 6.1.1 para 35 "The participation in any Internet referral schemes which requires the law practice to pay a fee or share fees paid for legal services referred would be a breach of the LPA." [Statute text; see Appendix A.1, A.3]; we do not pay a fixed entry fee either [Conservative line (not statute text)], 80% confidence. We do not join referral or introduction platforms even when they charge the law firm nothing: GN 6.1.1 para 36 "Even if no fees are paid or shared, any participation in an online introduction service or referral service carried out in such a way as to ‘unfairly attract work’ to the law practice would be improper given the terms of section 83(2)(b) and/or section 83(2)(h) of the LPA." [Statute text; see Appendix A.3]; the original text does not say what counts as "unfairly", so this book never joins any such platform [Conservative line (not statute text)], 60% confidence.

Second, the names of peer-reviewed rankings often include Leading or Best, but the ranking is decided by the reviewers and cannot be bought. So do not judge them by the decision diagram's question "Title self-awards best or top?"; submit materials through their normal process instead. Third-party rankings can serve as evidence of expertise: r 43(2)(g) lists assessment by peers as one of the seven factors [Statute text; see Appendix A.1]; taking part in the review itself is not specifically addressed in any regulator document [Original text not obtained]: no prohibition found in the current rules (scope checked: PCR 2015 in full, the Law Society Council's 12 Practice Directions and 2 Guidance Notes, the full category 6 list on the Law Society's ethics page; check date: 2026-09-29). Once listed, write only your own entry, and never draw inferences such as "better than <firm>" or "the only firm listed" [Conservative line (not statute text)], 80% confidence.

How "cited" is counted: L3 = the 30 questions in our 2026-09-29 run (practice areas other than family law, including the two cross-practice-area question types: choosing a lawyer and legal fees, and legal aid). ChatGPT run 1 gave 146 citations in total; the number in square brackets is run 2 (161 in total); AI Mode gave 122 in total. The family set = the 22 family-law questions in the public dataset (collected 2026-09-23; R1: ChatGPT 60 citations, AI Mode 52; R2: ChatGPT only, 59). One citation = one distinct URL in one answer. A site cited in only one question is marked "single case". The 7 recommendation questions = 2 near-me questions, 2 "is this firm good" questions and 3 "who's best" questions from L3.

Rankings, directories and the Law Society (10)

The Featured directory cell needs to be read as two separate things: first, buying a display-only advertising slot that makes no referrals, at a fixed rate card [Original text not obtained]: no prohibition found in the current rules (scope checked: PCR r 39, GN 6.1.1 paras 33–37, PD 6.1.2, the Law Society's Featured directory page; check date: 2026-09-29), 70% confidence; second, suggesting only this one paid slot out of all of them for consideration, which is this book's own call [Conservative line (not statute text)], 70% confidence. The basis is that the regulator sells this slot itself, and its listing pages really were cited in the recommendation questions; its rate-card terms were not obtained this round, and whether every listing page counts as a paid slot is also inferred from the index page's own words, not checked entry by entry.

Legal information sites, find-a-lawyer platforms, directories and review sites (9)

Asking for reviews, in the review platforms row [Original text not obtained]: no prohibition found in the current rules (scope checked: the current PCR in full, the revoked Publicity Rules (in full), the full category 6 list on the Law Society's ethics page; check date: 2026-09-29), 70% confidence. The four conditions (offer no incentive, don't write the review for them, don't ask only satisfied clients, don't dictate the content) rest on r 44(1)(b)'s ban on misleading conduct [Conservative line (not statute text)].

Government, courts, public bodies and media (5 kinds)

Outside the three tables, the five business profiles (Google, Bing, Foursquare, Apple, Yelp) are not among these 24 sites, but every free-text box, business Q&A, business post and photo caption on them is publicity: r 2(1) counts as publicity any advertisement "retrievable from, any mass medium (electronic or otherwise) or the Internet" [Statute text; see Appendix A.1]. So they use the same word list as the firm's own site (B.3); for how to fill in a profile, see chapter 3, 3.4 and → General Edition 3.4 Third-party credential tiers, Wikidata and the five business profiles. Forums and social media are not listed: across ChatGPT's two runs L3 cited them 1/307 in total, AI Mode 2/122, family 1/171.

The three tables are the result of opening or searching every site on 2026-09-29, and are reviewed again each quarter. Items marked "unverified" are ones we could not find that time; "inferred", "found by search" and confidence figures are copied into the ledger exactly as they are, never turned into a definite claim. Where a page actually states a rate card, copy it exactly; where it does not, always log "quote on request". The only paid slot this book suggests considering is the Law Society's Featured directory; paid profiles in ranking guides, paid slots on list-article sites, and memberships of every kind of platform, are never bought.

B.2 Outreach letter insertions, review request and reply templates

What you'll do in this section: fill the law-firm-specific spots — the sentence saying who is writing on the firm's behalf, the firm's self-description, the bracket after the billing question, the three lines of the materials list, the fees and practising-details lines in the update letter, the declaration paragraph, and the line under the signature — into the matching places in the main letter in → General Edition B.3 Outreach emails and review replies; correction letters are instead sent signed by a partner or director. Then copy the review request template (including the family-law-version line) and the review reply template, together with the three fixed rules, into the operations manual. Before sending, clear the three gates in chapter 6, 6.1 first (authorisation and this batch's sign-off sheet, the family self-check, the banned-word list).

What to replace and insert in the main letter

Copy the rest of the main letter from → General Edition B.3 Outreach emails and review replies unchanged; change only these spots:

Each of these changes has a reason. We write on the firm's behalf as its authorised contact because r 42(1) already contemplates publicity carried out by another person on the lawyer's behalf [Original text not obtained]: no prohibition found in the current rules (scope checked: the PCR in full; check date: 2026-09-29), 85% confidence. The line under the signature exists because a non-lawyer implying that they are qualified to practise commits an offence under LPA s 33(1)(b) [Statute text; see Appendix A.2]; the wording of this line is our own, and we treat phrases like "our legal team" or "free legal consultation" as falling within that offence [Conservative line (not statute text)], 75% confidence. The billing bracket adds one point to the General Edition's sentence: no referral arrangement of any kind. The basis is the passages quoted under the first rule at the start of B.1; not paying a fixed entry fee either is the conservative line (80%). The practising-details line only gives the LSRA register lookup link and the check date, because the field name for individual practising details on the LSRA has not been checked [Original text not obtained], and we write no number of any kind before it is verified.

Letters sent in the name of a limited liability law partnership (LLP) or law corporation (LLC) itself (including the correction letter below) end with the sentence "[approved full name] is incorporated with limited liability." LPA s 139(2) reads: "The partners of a limited liability law partnership must ensure that every invoice or official correspondence of the limited liability law partnership bears the statement that it is incorporated with limited liability."; s 154(4) says the same for a law corporation [Statute text; see Appendix A.2]. The provision does not define whether an outreach letter counts as "official correspondence"; to be safe, always add it [Conservative line (not statute text)].

Declaration paragraph (law-firm version, in every letter)

English

Before you prepare anything, three things we will not send, because the rules on lawyers' publicity in Singapore do not allow them: success rates or win counts; past cases or client names where that would breach client confidentiality; and any comparison with, or criticism of, other lawyers' fees or the quality of their services. Separately, we do not supply self-awarded labels such as "best" or "top", or client testimonials.

Chinese

"有几类内容我们不会提供，先说清楚。按新加坡律师宣传的规则，下面三类不能写：成功率与胜诉数字；会违反保密义务的过往案件与客户名；与其他律师在收费或服务质量上的任何比较或批评。另外，自封的「最好 / 第一」一类说法和客户证言，我们也不提供。"

Family law firms add one sentence to the end of each of the two paragraphs

For family matters, Singapore law also does not allow publishing anything that could identify a child involved in court proceedings, or anything covered by a Family Justice Court order restricting publication; and we will not send details from proceedings heard in private.

"家事案件另有法律明文：不得发布能认出涉诉儿童的任何信息，也不得发布家事法庭禁止发布令所禁的内容；不公开审理的庭审细节，我们也不会提供。"

Every item in the left column is backed by rule text: success rates are r 43(1)(b)(ii); cases and clients that would breach confidentiality are r 43(1)(b)(i) and r 6; comparison is r 43(1)(c) "(c) the publicity does not make any comparison or criticism in relation to the fees charged, or the quality of the services provided, by any other legal practitioner or law practice." [Statute text; see Appendix A.1]; the child item is CYPA s 112(1)(a); the order-restricting-publication item is FJA s 10(4)(a), (5) [Statute text; see Appendix A.4]. The right column has no provision that expressly bans anything, so the letter only writes "we don't provide it", never "the rules don't allow it": by default, never call yourself best, top or No.1 [Conservative line (not statute text)], 80% confidence; client testimonials [Original text not obtained]: no prohibition found in the current rules (scope checked: the current PCR in full and the revoked Publicity Rules (in full), searches for "testimonial" and "endors" both return 0; check date: 2026-09-29); not supplying them in outreach materials is our own working rule [Conservative line (not statute text)]. Not supplying hearing details applies FJA s 10(1) "Subject to subsection (2), all matters and proceedings in a Family Justice Court must be heard in private." to outward-facing materials [Conservative line (not statute text)], 85% confidence.

The General Edition's whole paragraph (the optional paragraph for regulated sides) lumps client testimonials, before-and-after photos and best, top, leading together as things "Singapore's advertising rules for our sector don't allow"; for law firms none of the three holds: there is no ban on testimonials in either the current PCR or the revoked Publicity Rules, before-and-after photos have no use for a law firm, and there is no express ban on best, top or leading. Use the law-firm version here instead of the General Edition's version; leading may be written when a third-party ranking's own tier of that name backs it (B.3). When you switch to an update letter or a correction letter, replace only points 1 and 2 of the main letter and keep the declaration paragraph.

Correction letters: signed by a partner or director

Correction letters follow the swap-in paragraph in → General Edition B.3 Outreach emails and review replies; the law firm changes only the sign-off: it is sent signed by a partner or director of the firm (in a sole proprietorship, the sole proprietor signs), written "[Name], [Partner / Director / Sole Proprietor], [approved full name]", with LLPs and LLCs adding the limited-liability sentence above; we may draft it on the firm's behalf, but never sign on its behalf. The duty to procure rectification or withdrawal under PCR r 42(2) falls only on the lawyer themselves and the firm's directors and partners, not on employed lawyers [Statute text; see Appendix A.1]; we also apply this duty to entries that a third party wrote on its own [Conservative line (not statute text)], 65% confidence. A correction letter changes only that one fact, attaches an official source (the LSRA register lookup, the firm's own fees page), and never mentions a ranking or smuggles in any comparison.

Review request template (use only after sign-off)

Operating instructions, six fixed rules:

1. The template goes word for word into the sign-off sheet (B.4), and is only used once a partner or director has signed it; before that signature, you may only ask the client verbally to "leave a review", with no guidance at all on what to write [Conservative line (not statute text)].
2. The firm sends it from its own mailbox to its own clients; we never handle the client list — a client's identity is itself confidential information (r 6) [Conservative line (not statute text)]; personal data is handled under the PDPA, and the PDPA's original text was not checked this round [Original text not obtained].
3. Send it to every client whose case is in the same category and closed in the same period; never ask whether they were satisfied first and decide whether to send it based on that.
4. Offer no incentive at all: no discount, gift, prize draw or fee reduction on the next matter.
5. Never write it for them, never give a sample review, never ask staff, family or friends to post reviews; never dictate what to write (except the family-law reminder line, see below).
6. The metric counts only requests sent, never reviews produced (the fixed monthly-report sentence is in B.3).

Asking for reviews as such [Original text not obtained]: no prohibition found in the current rules (scope checked: the current PCR in full, the revoked Publicity Rules (in full), the full category 6 list on the Law Society's ethics page; check date: 2026-09-29), 70% confidence. Rules 3–5 are the four conditions (don't ask only satisfied clients, offer no incentive, don't write it for them, don't dictate the content), and rest on r 44(1)(b)'s ban on misleading conduct — a review that came with an incentive, was written for the client, or was requested only from satisfied clients does not show the reader an ordinary experience [Conservative line (not statute text)].

English

Subject: A short review of your experience with [approved full name]

Dear [Name],

Thank you for instructing [approved full name]. We send this note to every client whose [type of matter] matter closed in [month], asking whether they would be willing to leave a review of their experience on [platform]: [link].

Leaving a review is entirely up to you. Whether you leave one, and what you write, makes no difference to how we act for you now or in future, and we do not offer anything in return.

[Name], [Partner / Director / role], [approved full name]

Chinese

“主题：请您简单评价一下与 [核准全名] 的合作

[称呼]：

感谢您委托 [核准全名]。[月份] 结案的 [案件类型] 客户，我们每一位都会收到这封信，问一句是否愿意在 [平台] 留下评价：[链接]。

留不留评价完全由您决定。留与不留、写什么，都不影响我们现在和今后为您办理事务，我们也不会为此提供任何回报。

[姓名]，[合伙人 / 董事 / 职位]，[核准全名]”

The family-law version adds one sentence before the sign-off

Please do not include your children's names, schools, or any detail that could identify them.

"请不要在评价里写孩子的名字、学校，或能认出他们的细节。"

Whether this sentence counts as "dictating the content": under this book's reading, it does not — it limits identifying information, not an opinion on the service [Conservative line (not statute text)]. Where a family client's review gives a child's identifying details, we do not republish that review or restate it in a reply; whoever publishes information that could identify a child involved in the proceedings bears the criminal liability (CYPA s 112(5)(b) "the person who publishes or distributes it") [Statute text; see Appendix A.4]. Whether a family client's review goes onto the firm's website is decided review by review: first through B.4's family self-check sheet, then by a partner or director's written sign-off.

Review reply template (reply to every review within 72 hours, negative ones included)

Replies are sent from the firm's own account; where we draft one on the firm's behalf, it still goes into this batch's sign-off sheet, and a family law firm's reply first goes through B.4's family self-check sheet.

English

Thank you for your feedback. We do not discuss anyone's legal matters in a public channel, and we do not confirm whether any person is or was our client. If you would like us to follow up, please contact us at [phone / email] and [role] will handle it directly.

Chinese

"谢谢您留下反馈。我们不会在公开渠道讨论任何人的法律事务，也不会确认任何人是否委托过我们。如果您希望我们跟进，请通过 [电话 / 邮箱] 联系，由 [职位] 直接处理。"

Three fixed rules: ① never confirm whether the reviewer is or was the firm's client, and never discuss any case — including the facts the reviewer wrote into the review themselves ② never comment on the opposing party, or on opposing counsel or the judge ③ every negative review gets the same template: no arguing, no restating what happened. Also as in the General Edition: no fees, results, win rate or comparison with other firms ever appears in a reply. Family law firms add one more rule: no word about a child, a court or a court order ever appears in a reply.

Basis: PD 6.1.1 lists online posts about clients, judges and the opposing party among its examples of improper posts; item (g) reads "to avoid adverse remarks on the conduct or character of the opposing party." [Statute text (the Council's advisory wording); see Appendix A.3], applied to review replies [Conservative line (not statute text)], 85% confidence. We neither confirm nor deny that the reviewer is or was the firm's client (r 6(2)) [Conservative line (not statute text)], 80% confidence — a client writing it themselves in a review does not amount to the firm being authorised to confirm it publicly. PD 6.1.1 also specifically reminds firms to comply with the PDPA: "Law practices are also reminded to adhere to standards imposed by the Personal Data Protection Act 2012 …" [Statute text; see Appendix A.3]; the PDPA's original text was not checked this round [Original text not obtained], so no personal data of any kind appears in a reply. To have a negative review removed, the only route is asking the platform to handle offensive content under its own rules; we never edit the review's text [Conservative line (not statute text)].

B.3 Word list (English–Chinese) and the fixed monthly-report sentence

What you'll do in this section: attach the English–Chinese word list below to the compliance memo in full, as one shared copy for on-site and off-site work; before every page launches, search the whole page using the second part's search words (body text, FAQ, captions, table headers, title, meta, structured data, business profiles and directory listings all included), and handle any hit per the table; run our own sales and outreach materials separately through the third, smaller table; copy the fixed sentence in the monthly report's reviews section verbatim, without changing a word.

Word list for law-firm pages

For a word not in the table, write the English original and do not invent a Chinese rendering [Conservative line (not statute text)]. Every wording in the "what to write instead" column is drawn from the seven classes of checkable facts in chapter 1, 1.8.

The free consultation row [Original text not obtained]: no prohibition found in the current rules (scope checked: the PCR in full, the Law Society's 12 PDs and 2 GNs; check date: 2026-09-29), 60% confidence. This row governs only the firm's own pages; our own materials never mention free legal consultation — see the third part of this section.

Words to search the whole page for before launch

Two groups of words, searched across the same scope: body text, FAQ, captions, table headers, title, meta, JSON-LD, the free-text fields of business profiles, directory listings, and PDFs sent out.

Group 1: peer price ranges and market-rate words — a hit means delete, don't rewrite
market   generally costs   ranges from   average   typical fee
"市场"   "行情"   "一般在"

Group 2: words from the table above — a hit means check the table and handle it per the "what to write instead" column
success rate   win rate   cheapest   lowest   guarantee   we will win
No. 1   top   best   leading   specialist   expert   no win no fee   free consultation
"胜诉率"   "成功率"   "最便宜"   "包赢"   "保证"   "最好"   "第一"   "首选"   "领先"   "专家"   "资深"   "权威"   "不赢不收费"   "免费咨询"

A hit in Group 1 always means delete, because peer price ranges are never written, whether or not a firm is named: naming a firm, or making it identifiable, hits r 43(1)(c) [Statute text; see Appendix A.1]; an unnamed market range is [Conservative line (not statute text)], 85% confidence. Court fees are not in this group — they are paid to the court, and sit in the same table as the firm's own fees, in a column of their own [Original text not obtained]: no prohibition found in the current rules (scope checked: PCR 2015 in full, the Law Society Council's 12 Practice Directions and 2 Guidance Notes; check date: 2026-09-29); for how to write it, see chapter 1, 1.3.

Words we never use in our own materials

Sales materials, the signature block of outreach letters, and case-study pages on our own website go through this separate, smaller table:

Chinese pages

Chinese pages are optional: build them only if the firm has Chinese-speaking clients, and accept them against the AI Mode leg only. Of L3's 4 Chinese-language questions, ChatGPT cited Chinese pages 0/47 across both runs, AI Mode 5/22 (Chinese pages judged heuristically by title and URL); of the 28 citations across the family set's 3 Chinese-language questions, only 1 was a Chinese page (AI Mode, single case). Before a Chinese page launches, check its copy against the "Chinese equivalent" column of the table above.

Fixed monthly-report sentence (reviews section, copy verbatim)

Below the three monthly review numbers in the monthly report (for the table headers, see → General Edition B.4 Headers for work orders, ledgers and monthly reports), always add this line without changing a word:

The review metric counts only requests sent; star ratings and review counts are observation records, not an acceptance measure.

The General Edition's sentence ("We do not request reviews …") is for the strictly regulated side; law firms do not use it — law firms do ask for reviews, they just never treat the number of reviews or the star rating as a result.

B.4 Lawyer sign-off sheet and family self-check sheet

What you'll do in this section: before every batch of materials goes out (pages, outreach letters, directory listings, business profiles, contributions, review request templates, review replies), fill in a sign-off sheet and have a partner or director sign it (in a sole proprietorship, the sole proprietor signs), and file it together with the materials; before family-law materials go for sign-off, a designated person on our side first runs them through the family self-check sheet, and any hit means they do not go for sign-off; before work starts for the first law-firm client, gather everything on the "Five things to have in hand before you start" list.

The sign-off sheet is our own control gate, not a legal formality [Conservative line (not statute text)]; the signatory is a partner or director (in a sole proprietorship, the sole proprietor), because the duty to procure rectification or withdrawal under PCR r 42(2) falls only on the lawyer personally and on the firm's directors and partners, not on employed lawyers [Statute text; see Appendix A.1].

Sign-off sheet fields

One sheet per batch; the fields are fixed — no adding or removing them:

Where the two sentences of the fixed declaration come from: r 42(1) requires the lawyer to ensure that all publicity about their practice is compliant, whether that publicity is by the lawyer or "by any other person on the legal practitioner’s behalf" [Statute text; see Appendix A.1], so even once the sheet is signed, the responsibility still sits with the lawyer; and the four offences that fall on us — LPA s 33(3), s 33(1)(b), CYPA s 112(5)(b), FJA s 10(5) — do not depend on the lawyer having broken any rule, so a lawyer's signature cannot shield us from them [Statute text; see Appendix A.2, A.4]. The "how our own service fee is calculated" field is on the sign-off sheet because charging per lead, per completed engagement, or as a share of legal fees could fall within s 33(3).

Only two kinds of item can be relaxed by a signature: facts only the firm itself knows, and judgement calls labelled Conservative line (not statute text); an item labelled Original text not obtained is still written the book's default way even once signed — it is never used as a basis for judgement (for the stop-and-escalate rules, see chapter 1, 1.1 and → General Edition 0.4 The three labels for compliance sentences, and the stop-and-escalate rule). A written sign-off resolves only the stop-and-escalate situations; it never turns something banned as Statute text into something publishable.

Family self-check sheet (done by us, before sign-off)

Every case study, case-law commentary, republished review, review reply and contribution from a family law firm goes through this table first. Whether to write up a case, whether to put a review on the site, and how far a reply goes are decided case by case by a partner or director, with a written sign-off; this table covers the step before that signature, and it quotes the two statutory provisions that no sign-off can release.

Three fields at the foot of the table: checker (on our side, name) · check date · conclusion. There are only two possible conclusions: none of the eight items hit — send for sign-off; any item hits — send it back for a rewrite, then recheck from item 1, and do not send it for sign-off.

Why this step is done by us, and cannot be skipped: CYPA s 112(5)(b) penalises "the person who publishes or distributes it", and s 112(9) counts websites and messaging systems as publishing too; FJA s 10(5) penalises "Any person" [Statute text; see Appendix A.4]. If we publish it or pass it on, we are the ones penalised, and a lawyer's signature does not change that. The list in item 7 is gazetted: "A copy of the list must be kept hung up in the Registry of the Family Justice Courts and must be published in the Gazette." [Statute text; see Appendix A.4] — you can find it by checking the Gazette.

We take the stricter reading in two places: this book counts custody and access proceedings within a divorce case as within CYPA s 112's "any proceedings in any court" [Conservative line (not statute text)], 80% confidence; the original text of CYPA's age definitions for "child" and "young person" was not obtained [Original text not obtained] — until checked, take the stricter reading and apply this table to every minor.

Five things to have in hand before you start

Gather all of these before the first law-firm client's work starts; missing even one means the first batch's sign-off sheet does not go out:

1. Ethics guidance in the Law Society's members' area: Ask the firm to use its own members' account to export the Advisory Committee's written guidance issued since 2015 and the 2019 and 2020 Ethics Digests, and send them to us for filing. The Factsheet's own words: "From 2015 to date, the Advisory Committee has issued more than 100 written guidances to members." [Statute text (statement of fact); see Appendix A.5]; these documents sit in the members' area, and we cannot get them [Original text not obtained] — they are the main source of the remaining uncertainty in the book's side decision (75% confidence). Where the exported guidance takes a stricter position, that firm follows the stricter position; if a ruling such as "fee ranges or price lists on a website are unbefitting the dignity of the profession" or "lawyers may not ask clients for reviews" turns up, the whole book moves law firms to the strictly regulated side in that quarter (chapter 0, 0.2).
2. LSRA register lookup screenshots: one for the firm, one for each lawyer, with the check date noted.
3. The current version number of the letter-of-engagement template: check every fee sentence against it, sentence by sentence (chapter 2, 2.1).
4. Written record of the approved name: the approved full name in English; where a Chinese name is approved, attach the Director of Legal Services' written approval (LPE Rules r 7) [Statute text; see Appendix A.2].
5. Our own service contract: states only a fixed service fee, never charged per lead, per case, per signed client, or as a percentage of legal fees; the authority to publish on the firm's behalf and the sign-off process are written into the contract.