# Chapter 5 · Writing pages (4): offices, credentials and trust pages, plus pre-publish checks > GEO Playbook · Law Firms v1.0 · Canlah AI · CC BY 4.0 · Web page: https://canlah.ai/playbook/law/trust-pages/ > Markdown edition for AI assistants, same content as the web page. Figures are code blocks (wireframe / mermaid / bars / steps / split); "→" links open the matching section on the web, and the same URL with .md is its Markdown edition. ## 5.18 ⑪ Office page: name the MRT station, and put whether you handle family matters on the address line **What you'll do in this section**: build a facts page for every office — the approved firm name, the address on one line, the nearest MRT station and walking minutes, day-by-day opening hours, and the phone number — then put "which matters this office handles and which it doesn't" on that same address line, with an LSRA register lookup link at the foot of the page; on launch day, change the address and practice areas on the Law Society directory listing and the business profiles to match this page, word for word. ```wireframe id=pt11 Figure: Block order on the branch page; what AI copies is the whole address line and the day-by-day hours — it doesn't read the body text title | service word + place first, brand last | req H1 | service word + place, or Welcome to branch name | req Full address line | building name, street number, unit, postcode on one line; qualifying conditions on the same line | req,cite Day-by-day opening hours | four to seven plain-text lines, Sunday on its own line | req,cite Phone and messaging | one channel per line, may be grouped by business line | req H2 How to get here | MRT station name goes in the H2; walking minutes, shuttle, parking | req Nearby landmarks | one or two | opt Staff at this branch | one line per person: qualification, year started practising, branch, registration number | opt,law LocalBusiness schema | address and hours match the visible values word for word | opt Hours and address rendered by JS | invisible with JS turned off | no ``` The office page is the safest page type for a law firm: the whole page is nothing but the address, hours, phone number and practising facts — it never touches fees or results, and does not need a single adjective. Use the general blueprint as it is; a law firm only changes the cells below. ```split Figure: For a law firm, only these cells of the general store / branch page change General store / branch page || Law firm office page H1: service term + place name || practice-area term + MRT station or area; title carries the approved firm name Address on one line, with qualifiers on that same line || On that same line, state which matters this office handles and which it doesn't Day-by-day opening hours || By appointment only: still state the hours you see clients Staff at this branch + registration number || Lawyers at this office: name as on the practising certificate + LSRA register lookup link Registered name || Approved full name; a law corporation (LLC) carries "LLC" or "Law Corporation" Chinese version || Build only if you have Chinese-speaking clients, using only the approved Chinese firm name ``` Sample sentence (both the numbers and the names are placeholders): " ( office): # Singapore — this office handles divorce, custody and wills; it does not handle criminal or corporate matters; about minutes' walk from ; Monday to Friday 9am–6pm, by appointment only; phone ." The basis for these cells is not equally firm. An LLC's name must carry "LLC" or "Law Corporation" [Statute text; see Appendix A.2], and the suffix is never dropped on the office page, in structured fields or on business profiles; every page states the firm name [Conservative line (not statute text)] (85% confidence — the Law Society's original text on this covers only flyers), and writes it word for word as the approved full name [Conservative line (not statute text)] (75% confidence). A Chinese firm name needs written approval; without approval, use the English approved name and do not translate it yourself [Statute text; see Appendix A.2; applied to web pages: Conservative line (not statute text)]; build the Chinese version as in 5.3, and accept it against the AI Mode leg only. Put "which matters you handle" on the address line: one of the examples of misleading publicity given by the Council of the Law Society was a firm that only handled uncontested divorces and had no experience with contested ones, but did not say so [Statute text; see Appendix A.3]; the original example was about a TV advertisement, and applying it to the office page is [Conservative line (not statute text)] (85% confidence). For law firms there is no statutory field of the "every piece of publicity must carry a registration number" kind; what the LSRA calls the number field for individual practising details has not been checked [Original text not obtained], so until it is, write only the register lookup link and the check date, never a number. ```mermaid Figure: The answer to a near-me question is pieced together from four places; the two a law firm controls are the office page and the directory listing, and they must match flowchart LR q["Lawyers near a given MRT station"] -->|pulls the address| a["Law firm office page"] q -->|pulls address and practice area| b["Law Society directory listing"] q -->|lists free options| c["Community legal clinic directory"] q -->|doesn't verify the entity| x["Page of a non-law-firm business"]:::warn a -->|matches the directory| win["Gets into the answer table"]:::hl a -->|qualifier only in a footnote| wrong["Wrongly listed as another practice area"]:::warn ``` The sample for near-me questions is very thin; treat this figure as direction only. In the L3 run (2026-09-29) there were 2 near-me questions; ChatGPT asked each one twice and AI Mode once, for 21 citations in total; by URL heuristic, 7 were government and public-body pages (including Law Society directory listings), 4 were contact pages, and 3 were home pages. ChatGPT's run 1 cited law-firm websites in 3/8 (run 2: 0/8) — asking the same question twice already changed the list. Of the 8 citations in run 2, 2 came from businesses with no connection to law: one was an office-building's own website, cited as the source of a firm's address; the other was a business's contact page, listed as a lawyer near the MRT station (single case; entities were hand-labelled by domain and title, not confirmed by opening every page). For the question about conveyancing lawyers, both answers took a firm's branch address and practice areas from a Law Society directory listing (single case). The free-option cell: across 3 near-me questions (1 family, 2 L3) and 5 ChatGPT answers, 3 cited the government's published PDF list of community legal clinics — this cell is not reachable; do not treat it as a competitor to fight for. The family set (2026-09-23) had only 1 near-me question, asked once; of ChatGPT's 6 citations, 3 were law-firm pages, and one of them took the walking distance — about 5 minutes from a given MRT station — from a firm's contact page (single case). So once the office page is live, the directory listing has to change with it (the Law Society states that the listings in its "Find A Featured Lawyer/Law Firm" directory (the Featured directory) are paid by advertising [Statute text; see Appendix A.5]; whether the cited listing is a paid placement has not been checked; whether to buy one: see 6.2; how to fill in a listing: see 6.3), and the business profiles change the same way (see 3.4). What happens when a qualifier is buried in a footnote: an earlier draft recorded one case — one firm's office carried "*For Corporate matters only" solely as an asterisked footnote, and ChatGPT still listed it as the closest divorce lawyer to a given MRT station (single case, from an earlier draft's record; not something the dataset can re-verify). For the general-edition wording, see （→ 通用版 5.26 实体与产品事实类档 B（一）：门店、核验入口、目录收录）. > **Example** (law firms) For the near-me question about conveyancing lawyers, ChatGPT laid out a four-column answer table on its own: firm, address, phone, notes. The "address" cell went down to the building name, street number, unit and postal code; the "notes" cell said how close to the MRT station and whether the firm did conveyancing; every row carried a URL for an office page, a contact page or a directory listing (L3, run 1, single case). Your page needs to fill all four of these cells. ## 5.19 ㉚ Official register lookup and ㊴ practising credentials wall **What you'll do in this section**: build an official register lookup page listing, for every lawyer at the firm, the name spelling used to find them on the LSRA register lookup page, the register lookup link and the check date, with a link to the SAL Directory of Specialists for anyone with an accreditation; the practising credentials wall carries only facts that can be checked against an official register — practising certificate status, year of admission, year of accreditation, the year of any personal award — and never the Law Society's armorial bearings (its crest). Both pages state facts only, never claims. ```split Figure: These two trust assets do different jobs; both link only to the official register ㉚ Official register lookup page || ㊴ Practising credentials wall Every lawyer: the name spelling used for the lookup || Practising certificate status, with a check date LSRA register lookup link + check date || Year of admission Anyone accredited: link to the SAL Directory of Specialists || Full SAL accreditation name + year of accreditation, attributed to that person alone Senior Counsel list: not posted until verified || Personal awards: full name + year + issuer + category Link only to the official register, never to a ranking guide || Never the Law Society's crest ``` ### ㉚ Official register lookup page (pt30) ```wireframe id=pt30 Figure: Verification and lookup page; its value is the citation slot at the end of the answer — for the register version, what's copied is the sentence on its statutory authority H1 | body's name, or Find a category role | req Statutory-authority sentence | which law set the body up, and whom it regulates | req,cite Two action buttons | check who's registered, practitioner log-in | req Search box | serves as the first H2 | req Four explainer H2s | apply for registration, who's registered, dated notices, FAQ | opt URL | carries a search-type parameter | opt ``` The blueprint above draws the register's own page; what a law firm builds is its downstream version: move the "go check practising status" step onto your own page, and leave the verifying to the official register. In the L3 run (2026-09-29), ChatGPT's run 1 cited the LSRA register lookup page directly in 3/146 citations (run 2: 4/161; across both runs it covers 4 questions), and AI Mode in 1/122. By answer count, of ChatGPT's 30 run-1 answers, 7 listed the LSRA register lookup as a place to verify a lawyer or find one (run 2: 6/30; across both runs 13/60, covering 7 questions), and 4 of those 13 restated the register lookup page's own scope sentence: it lists Singapore lawyers with a valid practising certificate and registered law firms. Where it lands in the answer splits two ways: in the 4 answers to "how do I find a lawyer" and "what should I ask before hiring a lawyer", it appeared as one of the first two steps on the list, in the first quarter of the answer; the other 9 appearances fell in the back part of the answer, as a check-it-yourself exit (roughly by character position). In the family set, it appeared only at the end of one answer (single case). For a law firm this is a citation slot, not a content slot: what gets restated is only the register lookup page's own self-description, and it has limited value for moving rankings on its own. Its real use lies elsewhere: AI tells readers to check practising status before hiring a lawyer, and if your page has every lawyer's lookup spelling ready, a reader who follows that advice will find them, instead of coming up empty because the name spelling doesn't match. The name spelling follows the practising certificate: a person's name in the firm name must match the practising certificate [Statute text; see Appendix A.2], and the names on the lawyer page and on this page are written as they appear on the practising certificate and the register lookup result [Conservative line (not statute text)]. The register lookup page is a search box; whether every lawyer has a fixed URL, and what the field for individual practising details is called, have not been checked [Original text not obtained]; until they are, write only the register lookup link, the name spelling used for the search, and the check date. The register lookup page carries its own disclaimer: the Ministry of Law gives no warranty as to the accuracy, completeness or reliability of the lookup results [Statute text; see Appendix A.5], so this page writes "can be checked on the LSRA register lookup", never "government-certified" [Conservative line (not statute text)]. Senior Counsel is limited to persons appointed under the Legal Profession Act [Statute text; see Appendix A.1, A.2]; the official source for the SC list was not obtained this round [Original text not obtained], so until it is, this page carries no link to a list. The SAL Directory of Specialists held 121 entries on 2026-09-29, 0 of them for family law [Statute text; see Appendix A.5]: today no family lawyer can claim a Family Law specialist accreditation (see 1.6), so leave the family-lawyer cell blank for now and check the directory again before every launch. This page links only to the official register; a link to a ranking guide goes on ㉙, not on the verification page [Conservative line (not statute text)]. > **Example** (law firms) When ChatGPT answered "what should I ask before hiring a lawyer", the first group of questions included this one: "Which law practice are you with, and can I verify you on the LSRA directory?" (L3, run 1, single case). The register lookup page answers exactly this question. ### ㊴ Practising credentials wall (pt39) ```wireframe id=pt39 Figure: Trust centre / compliance proof page; AI copies the certificate wall and the latest-report-date sentence title | separate subdomain optional, main domain also fine | opt H1 | brand Trust Center | req First-screen count strip | number of documents, FAQs and certificates in one line | req Certificate / licence wall | certificate or licence name + issuer + validity period, a machine-readable list | req,cite Latest check-date sentence | the specific date of the most recent report or check | req,cite Q&A directory | grouped by topic, each group labelled with its item count | req Report or file itself | may sit behind a log-in or NDA | opt Written as a marketing article | adjectives in place of a certificate wall | no ``` The blueprint's archetype is a software company's trust centre; a law firm swaps it for a practising credentials wall — same method: write the source and the check date beside every fact, as a list, never as an article. Write the first-screen count line as "N practising lawyers, N of them partners or directors (check date )". Two things must not be mixed up. Publicity may not use the Law Society's crest [Statute text; see Appendix A.1]; the Law Society's Practice Excellence Award page, on the other hand, states that a winner receives "a special Practice Excellence emblem to showcase in marketing materials" [Statute text; see Appendix A.5]. This award goes to individual lawyers, and both the emblem and the award are attributed to the winning lawyer personally; write on the wall " of our firm received (, )", never that the firm itself won it [Conservative line (not statute text)]. The same applies to SAL specialist accreditation; SAL's own text: "Your accreditation is an individual attainment. It should not be used to promote your firm or organisation." [Statute text; see Appendix A.5] — attribute it to the person, together with the year of accreditation; an accreditation is valid for 3 years, and is taken down the day it expires or is revoked [Statute text; see Appendix A.5]. State the check date for practising certificate status, and check it again against the LSRA before every launch. For the general-edition wording, see （→ 通用版 5.27 实体与产品事实类档 B（二）：资质证明、条款、操作文档与对接）; how to write a lawyer's profile page is in 3.2. ## 5.20 ㉛ Engagement process page, ㉟ pro bono and legal aid page, ㉑ confidentiality and privacy page **What you'll do in this section**: swap all three types for the law firm's equivalents — the engagement process page spells out how to book a first consultation, check conflicts of interest first, who handles the matter, what the letter of engagement says, and at what stage you're billed; the pro bono and legal aid page is optional and states only the programme name, how the firm takes part, and the official link; the confidentiality and privacy page states that it rests on the lawyer's duty of confidentiality and the *Personal Data Protection Act 2012* (PDPA), and only cites a provision number once it has been checked. ```split Figure: A law firm swaps all three general-edition types for its own equivalent, each with one extra rule General-edition archetype || Law firm equivalent, plus the extra rule Help centre / how-to page (pt31) || Engagement process page: state the process only; fees follow the letter of engagement Integration / marketplace listing (pt35) || Pro bono and legal aid page: state only the name and the official link, never as an endorsement Vendor legal terms page (pt21) || Confidentiality and privacy page: rests on the duty of confidentiality and the PDPA; cite a provision number only once it is checked ``` ### ㉛ Engagement process page (pt31) ```wireframe id=pt31 Figure: Help and how-to page; AI copies the object list and the negative list in the first paragraph Line above H1 | update date + scope condition | req H1 | verb-first task name | req First paragraph | the objects this task covers and the direction, no preamble | req,cite H2 step names | broken into steps, or Step 1…4 up front | req Limitations and considerations list | "doesn't support / doesn't sync" as its own paragraph | req,cite Original menu-path wording | the exact text on the button or menu | opt Hides what it doesn't support | not a word about what it can't do | no ``` ```steps Figure: Write the engagement process page in this order; each step matches something AI tells readers to ask 1 | Book a first consultation | Whether it's free, how long, whether it includes reviewing documents 2 | Check conflicts of interest | Check conflicts first, then hear the facts 3 | Who handles it | What the partner, lawyer and paralegal each do 4 | What the letter of engagement says | Scope, exclusions, billing method, termination clause 5 | Payment stages | When invoices are issued; court fees, disbursements and GST listed separately 6 | Where to go with a dispute | Link to the Law Society's fee-dispute page ``` Why this order: in the L3 run (2026-09-29), across the two questions "how do I find a lawyer" and "what should I ask before hiring a lawyer", all 4 of ChatGPT's answers (two questions, two runs each) told readers to get a written letter of engagement, and itemised what it should spell out or what they should get alongside it — scope and billing method appeared in all 4, termination conditions in 3; all 4 also told readers to ask who will actually handle the matter. Of the 4 answers to near-me questions, 3 appended a paragraph at the end listing questions to ask before engaging a firm; together the three paragraphs asked: the consultation fee, whether the firm handles this type of matter, how long it will take, and whether the total fee includes GST and disbursements (the conveyancing question also asked whether the firm is on the bank's panel). Answer these questions on the page first, and a reader who brings AI's checklist to compare will find an answer to every item on it. But don't expect ChatGPT to cite this page: for the first two questions, all 9 of ChatGPT's run-1 citations were government and public-body pages, law-firm pages 0/9 (run 2: 0/9); of AI Mode's 6 citations, 1 was a law-firm page. This page's value lies in AI Mode and in on-site follow-through (not measured). The letter-of-engagement step is the lawyer's duty to inform the client: the basis for fees, the method of payment, other fees that can be foreseen, and at what stage they are payable [Statute text; see Appendix A.1]; the Law Society advises putting this information in the letter of engagement [Statute text (the Council's advisory wording); see Appendix A.3]. Where this lands is the letter of engagement, not the web page: the page states only which items the letter of engagement will cover; write the actual figures in the format from 1.2, and state "The final fee is set out in our letter of engagement." [Conservative line (not statute text)]. Can you write "free of charge" for a first consultation? [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), 60% confidence. If you write it, state the length and scope — for example, "First 30 minutes free of charge; document review not included" (example); omitting an important limit is publicity that omits to state a material fact [Statute text; see Appendix A.1]; and it is not written as a promotional hook (see 1.2). This item governs only the law firm's own page: our own materials never say we offer free legal consultations (see 0.4). The "who handles it" step states clearly who is a lawyer and who isn't. For support staff's job titles, the Law Society requires that a business card not be worded in a way that could make someone think they are a lawyer [Statute text; see Appendix A.3]; applying this to the engagement process page and the team page is [Conservative line (not statute text)]; a lawyer's designation is chosen only from the approved list (see 1.6). For the fee-dispute exit, link to the Law Society's fee-dispute page (see 1.3). ### ㉟ Pro bono and legal aid page (pt35) ```wireframe id=pt35 Figure: Integration listing page; it gives the yes/no call, while the object list that gets copied sits on a plain-text page on the same site title / H1 | one integration per URL | req Logo wall | lists many integrations without spelling out the fields | no Certification badge | official certification badge, AI uses it to make a yes/no call | req Built by | built in-house or by a third party | opt Object list for the integration | names each integrated object, not "core data" | req Direction | one-way or two-way, in the same sentence | req Prerequisites | required credentials or subscription | req What's not supported | state clearly what it doesn't do | req Sync timing | how often, full or incremental (not measured) | opt Plain-text fallback page | the same set of fields repeated on a help page you can curl | req ``` Optional: only build this if lawyers at the firm actually take part in a pro bono programme, a community legal clinic rota or legal aid work. Write the four fields as in the general edition: programme name (object list), how the firm takes part (direction), who can apply (prerequisites, copied from the official original text, with a check date), and what the firm does not do within the programme (not-supported items). State only the other party's name and the official link; never write sentences such as "in partnership with " or "endorsed by " that could make readers think the official body is vouching for the firm [Conservative line (not statute text)]. The two extra rules here both have a source text. For a public acknowledgement of sponsorship or donation, a lawyer's duty is to "take reasonable steps to ensure" that the acknowledgement carries only the name, that the person is a lawyer, and the firm name (where the firm itself is the donor, only the firm name), with no description of the practice [Statute text; see Appendix A.1]. When a lawyer gives free legal advice at a legal aid clinic, only the name, the fact that the person is a lawyer, and the firm name may be made public — no business cards or brochures are handed out, and the lawyer does not act for the person advised (except in a pro bono capacity) [Statute text; see Appendix A.1] — so the page does not carry a lead-generating line such as "Met us at the clinic? You can bring your matter to our firm." [Conservative line (not statute text)]. This type serves only as a trust asset and for on-site follow-through: in the L3 run (2026-09-29), for the 2 legal aid questions, ChatGPT's run 1 cited government and public-body pages in 14/15, AI Mode in 8/9, and law-firm pages were 0 on both legs. The official version is not reachable; the firm only builds the downstream version. ### ㉑ Confidentiality and privacy page (pt21) ```wireframe id=pt21 Figure: Vendor legal terms page; AI copies the commitment sentence that names the country or jurisdiction title / H1 | terms' full name, no marketing language | req H2 contents, FAQ, date, author | this type needs none of these; skipping them costs nothing | opt Definitions clause | list the applicable countries or jurisdictions in the definitions section | req,cite Organised by jurisdiction | one section per jurisdiction, section name is the jurisdiction's name | req Commitment sentence | a compliance commitment naming the country or jurisdiction | req,cite Numbered clauses | body text numbered clause by clause | req Writes "applicable laws" without naming countries | vague wording only | no ``` A law firm has no vendor terms page; its equivalent is the confidentiality and personal data policy page. The commitment sentence states two grounds: the lawyer's duty of confidentiality over client information (PCR r 6) [Statute text; see Appendix A.1], and the PDPA. The Law Society's Practice Directions also specifically remind firms to comply with the PDPA [Statute text (the Council's advisory wording); see Appendix A.3], but the PDPA's own text was not checked this round [Original text not obtained]; until it is, write only the Act's name and which data this page covers, never a provision number, and never restate the PDPA's specific obligations. Law firms add one more rule: the page does not list client names and does not give examples such as "we've handled matters for such-and-such a company" — confirming that someone is or was a client can itself be confidential information [Conservative line (not statute text)] (80% confidence). ## 5.21 ㉙ Reputation and credentials page, ⑲ firm data page and ⑱ long-form PDF **What you'll do in this section**: the reputation and credentials page carries only four things that can be checked — each lawyer's years in practice and year of admission, a third-party ranking guide's "guide name · year · tier", one line of platform ratings, and a single review the client has authorised in writing; the firm data page carries only operating figures that have passed the six checks for numbers — never a win rate, never a case volume that reads as a track record; the fee section of the long-form PDF follows 1.2. Family clients' reviews are decided one at a time: first pass our own de-identification check, then get a partner's or director's written sign-off. ```split Figure: What the reputation and credentials page writes and doesn't write Write || Don't write Each lawyer's years in practice and year of admission || Success rate, win count, "never lost a case" Guide name · year · tier, with a link || Calling yourself No. 1, or inferring you beat another firm from a ranking One line: platform · number of reviews · rating · check date || Star-rating widgets, clipping only the good reviews A single review the client has authorised in writing || A family-law review that hasn't passed the de-identification check Personal awards attributed to the winning lawyer || Awards and ranking spots that come simply from paying ``` ### ㉙ Reputation and credentials page (pt29) ```wireframe id=pt29 Figure: Self-built reputation and credentials page; AI copies the rating sentence with its denominator and the string of award years Third-party media quote | one sentence + attributed source | opt Rating H2 | rating + denominator, its own H2 | req,cite Award row | one row per award, stating consecutive years and each individual year | req,cite Per-person H3 | Individual Recognition | opt Quantified statement with a denominator | one sentence in the first screen | req ``` The sample for "is this firm good" is very thin for law firms: in the L3 run (2026-09-29) there were 2 questions, ChatGPT asked each one twice, for 4 answers in total; the family set (2026-09-23) had 1 question, asked once. What can be seen is which block AI pulls from where in answers like these: - **Positive facts are mostly taken from directory listings and the firm's own pages**: all 4 of the L3 answers wrote a lawyer's years in practice or decade of admission, sourced from a Law Society directory listing, the firm's lawyer page, or a case-law lookup site; 2 cited a Law Society directory listing, and 2 cited a ranking guide's year and tier (both from the two answers to the conveyancing question). - **Ratings are taken from third parties**: all 4 answers cited a rating on a third-party page, 3 of them with a review count, and none from the firm's own page; in one case it noticed two ratings that didn't match and said outright that the rating should only be a rough reference (single case). The family question went the other way: ChatGPT trusted the rating with a denominator on the very firm's own page (see 1.5, single case). - **Results-based claims get called out**: for the question about whether a firm's criminal practice is good, one answer warned readers to discount phrases like "charges dropped" or "best possible outcome" on law-firm websites; another said that "best" list articles cannot be taken as proof of outcomes (single case). So what this page should write is exactly what AI treats as positive facts, and two of them sit right inside the seven factors for expertise: years in practice counts as experience, and a third-party ranking guide counts as assessment by peers [Statute text; see Appendix A.1]. "Level of success achieved" is also one of the seven, but it only stays on file as evidence — no success rate appears on the page [Statute text; see Appendix A.1; how the two apply together: Conservative line (not statute text)] — the source text carries no exception at all for the success rate itself [Statute text; see Appendix A.1]. How to write each cell: - **Ranking guides**: write only your own entry, " · · " plus a link [Conservative line (not statute text)]; the regulator has no document specifically on ranking guides such as Chambers or Legal 500 [Original text not obtained]. Never infer from a ranking that you beat a named firm, call yourself "the only firm listed", or call yourself No. 1, top or best [Conservative line (not statute text)] (80% confidence; the basis is r 43(1)(c), which bans any comparison of the quality of other lawyers' services; see Appendix A.1); write "leading" only when a third-party guide's own tier of that name backs it [Conservative line (not statute text)] (70% confidence). - **Awards**: a personal award is attributed to the winning lawyer (see 5.19); "N years running" is followed by a string of individual years, each one checkable on the issuer's own page; an award that simply comes with payment is not written [Conservative line (not statute text)] (70% confidence). - **Ratings**: whether the firm's own page carries a platform rating [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). If you carry one, use only one line of visible text: " · reviews · · check date ", never a star-rating widget, and never bury it only in structured data [Conservative line (not statute text)]; the basis is that publicity must be verifiable [Statute text; see Appendix A.1]. - **A single review**: with the client's written authorisation, containing no result and no success rate [Statute text; see Appendix A.1], and its meaning not altered [Conservative line (not statute text)]. Whether a family client's review or case study is republished is not a one-size-fits-all rule in this book: it is decided one item at a time, with a partner's or director's written sign-off; before that sign-off, we run the de-identification check first on our own side (Appendix B.4), and if any item hits, it does not go for sign-off. Two items come straight from the legislation, and a sign-off cannot release them: never publish anything that could identify a child involved in the proceedings — and this holds even after the child turns 18 (CYPA s 112); never publish a single word of family proceedings content a court has restricted from publication (FJA s 10) [Statute text; see Appendix A.4]. Both provisions penalise the person who publishes: the CYPA says "the person who publishes or distributes it", and the FJA says "Any person" — it is we who put the review on the page, and the lawyer's signature does not take on that responsibility for us. A written sign-off resolves only the stop-and-escalate situations; it never turns something banned as Statute text into something publishable (the reasoning is in 1.5, 1.7). Among the more than 100 pieces of written ethics guidance in the Law Society's members' area, there may be case-specific rulings on client reviews that this book has not read (see 0.2); if the documents a firm exports with its members' account at the start of the work carry a stricter position, this page follows the stricter one. For the general-edition wording, see （→ 通用版 5.22 选择与口碑类档 B：第三方测评、舆情论坛、评价聚合、自建口碑、结论先行）. > **Example** (law firms) When asked whether a firm's conveyancing practice is good, both of ChatGPT's answers built their "strengths" on the same three things: the practice areas on a directory listing, the years in practice of two individual lawyers, and a ranking guide's year and tier (run 2 also added the address and conversion date from the firm's website); the ratings paragraph came entirely from third-party pages (L3, single case). ### ⑲ Firm data page (pt19) ```wireframe id=pt19 Figure: Statistics source page; AI copies the paired restatement sentence in the conclusion and the chart caption that carries the basis Methodology section | sampling method + sample size + basis + what changed from the last version | req Structural labels | academic version's four-part labels such as OBJECTIVES, report version's numbered charts | req Percentage qualifier | every percentage immediately followed by its population | req Restatement sentence in the conclusion | key numbers said again, paired, in the conclusion | req,cite Charts and data labels | chart caption carries year and basis, numbers labelled beside the bars | req,cite Caption sentence for the table | states the table's numbers in one sentence | req Scope-exclusion sentence | this figure excludes A, doesn't cover B, statistics year C | req Named author and department | one line | opt Gives a number without its basis | no survey name + year + sample size | no ``` The firm's own data page has not been seen cited across the 22 family questions or the 30 L3 questions (n = 0; for the family set, R1 was taken apart page by page and R2 was sampled by page type; L3 was checked by heuristic page type); schedule it as a trust asset, not a traffic page. The only thing you can write is an operating figure with a clearly stated basis, for example "for simplified-procedure divorces this firm closed in , the median time from filing to the uncontested hearing was weeks (n = ; counts only ; excludes )" (example), which first passes the six checks for numbers (see （→ 通用版 5.10 页型共用件：数字六项检查、无公开价、计价单位、日期与 schema）) before going onto the sign-off sheet. Law firms add three more rules: - Success rates and win rates are never written; the source text carries no exception [Statute text; see Appendix A.1]. Case volumes such as "handled N cases" are written only as an operating figure with a clear basis: state the basis, the period and the denominator, never alongside a result, and never as a track record [Conservative line (not statute text)] (75% confidence). - Beside a duration figure, write "individual cases depend on the court's own schedule": a figure could make a reader expect their own case to be just as fast, and creating an unjustified expectation is misleading [Statute text; see Appendix A.1; applied to duration figures: Conservative line (not statute text)]. - Family-law figures are used only in aggregate, never broken down to a cell fine enough to match a specific case (for example, a district with only one or two cases in a given month) [Conservative line (not statute text)]. Never move an official figure onto the firm data page and pass it off as your own data. The sentence in the Ministry of Law's 2024 parliamentary reply stating that about 4,150 of 6,220 divorces, or 66%, went through the simplified procedure was copied by ChatGPT (family R2, 2026-09-23, single case) because the numerator, denominator, percentage and time window all sat in one sentence; sentences like this belong on the downstream official reply restatement page (see 5.16), and the firm data page writes its own numbers in the same sentence shape. ### ⑱ Long-form PDF (pt18) ```wireframe id=pt18 Figure: Regulator guidance PDF; a Chinese-language question hits the matching question on the contents page Cover | guidance's full name + version + revision date | req Question-style contents page | every line a question in the buyer's own words + page number | req,cite Numbered body paragraphs | every paragraph numbered, so it can be cited precisely | req Definitions and commencement date in the first 3% | said in one sentence | req,cite Contents written as noun phrases | not questions in the buyer's own words | no ``` A PDF is publicity too: the rules' definition of "publicity" covers an advertisement printed or carried in any information medium [Statute text; see Appendix A.1]. So the fees section of a PDF follows 1.2, not a single peer price range is written (see 1.3), and family case studies follow 1.7; compliance follows the content, not the document's format. Schedule it further back: across the two family rounds (2026-09-23), only 3 of 171 citations were PDFs, all of them government documents cited by ChatGPT — the courts' divorce guide and divorce-process explainer, 1 each, and 1 list of community legal clinics. In the L3 run, judged as PDFs by URL heuristic, ChatGPT cited 8/146 in run 1 (run 2: 9/161), AI Mode 5/122; of the 70 citations of law-firm websites (across the three calls, heuristic), only 3 were PDFs. Build the office page, the fees page and explainer pages first, and put the PDF later. Write the table of contents as in the general edition — a question in the buyer's own words plus a page number, for example "How long does a divorce take? … page 3" (example). Do not build a market-observation long-form piece (see 0.3). For the general-edition wording, see （→ 通用版 5.28 源头类档 B（一）：法条、监管指引、官方答复、器械文件、判例）, （→ 通用版 5.29 源头类档 B（二）：统计源头页、名录页）. ## 5.22 Handing over: the three law-firm checks and common mistakes **What you'll do in this section**: every page first goes through the general edition's five steps and self-check list; a law firm adds three more — the family de-identification check, an evidence number attached to every "expertise" sentence, and sign-off by a partner or director; before launch, search the whole page for market-type words and delete any hit; finally check it item by item against the table below. ```steps Figure: After the general five steps, three more; failing any one sends the page back 1 | Family self-check | Children, orders restricting publication, hearing details — done on our own side 2 | Expertise evidence | Every "specialise in" sentence carries one of the seven factors and an evidence number 3 | Partner sign-off | The sign-off sheet is filed together with this batch's materials ``` The first check is our own gate, ahead of sign-off: family-law materials (case studies, case commentary, republished reviews, review replies) each go through the family self-check sheet in Appendix B.4, item by item, and if any item hits, it does not go for sign-off. The reasoning is in 1.7: the two family-law provisions penalise the person who publishes, and a lawyer's signature cannot shield us from that. The second check: every sentence using "specialise in" or "expertise in" (or "擅长" on a Chinese page) must be able to produce evidence against one of the seven factors [Statute text; see Appendix A.1], with the evidence number entered on the sign-off sheet. The third check: the signatory is a partner or director — the duty to rectify publicity already issued falls only on the lawyer personally and on the firm's partners and directors, never on an employed lawyer [Statute text; see Appendix A.1]; the sign-off sheet is our own control gate, not a legal formality [Conservative line (not statute text)]. A sign-off does not transfer the lawyer's responsibility: something someone else publishes on a lawyer's behalf still counts as the lawyer's own publication [Statute text; see Appendix A.1]. That we can write and publish on a firm's behalf likewise rests only on the absence of a prohibition [Original text not obtained]: no prohibition found in the current rules (scope checked: PCR 2015 in full; check date: 2026-09-29), 85% confidence. A written sign-off resolves only the stop-and-escalate situations; it never turns something banned as Statute text into something publishable. If the written ethics guidance a firm exports with its members' account at the start of the work (see 0.2) contains a stricter position than this book, that firm adds it to this list. Before launch, search the whole page for `market`, `generally costs`, `ranges from`, `average`, `typical fee`, `市场`, `行情`, `一般在`, across the body text, FAQ, figure captions, table headers, title, meta and JSON-LD alike (the full scope is in Appendix B.3). Wherever these words turn up, they are mostly writing a peer's or the market's price: a price comparison that names, or that lets readers identify, a specific firm is a comparison banned as Statute text [Statute text; see Appendix A.1]; an unnamed market range follows the conservative line and is equally not written [Conservative line (not statute text)] (85% confidence). Delete a hit sentence entirely rather than rewrite it in place; if that spot needs content, write a new sentence about a different subject — the firm itself, a court or a piece of legislation (the reasoning is in 1.8). Scan the remaining banned words one by one against Appendix B.3's Chinese–English word list. ```split Figure: The most common mistakes when a law firm hands over a page, and how to fix them Mistake || Fix Writing a market range before the firm's own price under the same H2 || Delete the market range; keep only the firm's own price and conditions Writing "leading" with no matching tier from a third-party guide || Delete it, or add the guide name, year and tier Putting a single review on the website with no written authorisation || Take it down; republish once authorised A family case study naming a child's school || Delete it, and log it internally as an incident An office qualifier buried in a footnote marked with an asterisk || Put it on the address line A keyword microsite with no approved firm name || Add the name to every page, linking back to the main site SAL accreditation displayed on the firm's home page || Move it to the accredited lawyer's own page, with the year of accreditation The Law Society's crest on the page || Delete it; an individual award emblem goes only under the winning lawyer's name Writing "first consultation free" with no scope || State the length and what's not included ``` Four rows in the table cannot be released even with a partner's sign-off: a child's school (information that could identify a child involved in the proceedings) [Statute text; see Appendix A.4], a review put on the website without client authorisation (only the client can give that authorisation) [Statute text; see Appendix A.1], the Law Society's crest [Statute text; see Appendix A.1], and attributing SAL accreditation to the firm [Statute text; see Appendix A.5]. The market-range row is handled by the two-tier treatment in the paragraph above (the basis is in 1.3). For the five steps per page, the red line on lying and the general self-check list, see （→ 通用版 5.31 交稿：每页五步、撒谎红线与自检）; for the general table of common mistakes, see （→ 通用版 5.32 常见错总表）.