Writing pages (4): offices, credentials and trust pages, plus pre-publish checks

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.

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.

Sample sentence (both the numbers and the names are placeholders): "<approved firm name> (<MRT station> office): <building name> <street number> #<unit> Singapore <postal code> — this office handles divorce, custody and wills; it does not handle criminal or corporate matters; about <N> minutes' walk from <MRT station> <exit>; Monday to Friday 9am–6pm, by appointment only; phone <number>."

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.

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 → General Edition 5.26 Tier-B entity and product facts types (1): branches, verification pages, directory listings.

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.

㉚ Official register lookup page (pt30)

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)

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 <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 "<Name> of our firm received <award full name> (<year>, <category>)", 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 → General Edition 5.27 Tier-B entity and product facts types (2): compliance proof, terms, how-to docs and integrations; 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.

㉛ Engagement process page (pt31)

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)

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 <institution>" or "endorsed by <institution>" 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)

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.

㉙ Reputation and credentials page (pt29)

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, "<guide name> <year> · <practice area> · <tier>" 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: "<platform> · <N> reviews · <rating> · check date <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 → General Edition 5.22 Tier-B selection and reputation types: third-party reviews, sentiment and forums, review aggregates, self-built reputation, verdict-first.

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)

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 <year>, the median time from filing to the uncontested hearing was <N> weeks (n = <case count>; counts only <basis>; excludes <exclusions>)" (example), which first passes the six checks for numbers (see → General Edition 5.10 Shared parts for all page types: six checks for numbers, no public price, billing units, dates and 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)

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 → General Edition 5.28 Tier-B primary sources (1): legislation, regulator guidance, official replies, device documents, case law, → General Edition 5.29 Tier-B primary sources (2): statistics sources, registers.

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.

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.

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 → General Edition 5.31 Handing over: five steps per page, the red line on lying, and self-checks; for the general table of common mistakes, see → General Edition 5.32 Master table of common mistakes.