Content an attorney will not be embarrassed to publish.

Law firms have lived through every version of internet content production: outsourced articles, spun location pages, keyword quotas, generic FAQs, and now unlimited AI text. The cost is not merely clutter. Weak publishing makes the firm appear less thoughtful than the attorneys who work there.

We will not publish a page merely because software can produce it and a keyword tool can name it.

Every page needs a reason to exist

The reason must be useful to a defined reader. “We need more blog posts” is not a reason. “Prospective clients repeatedly misunderstand what happens during the first consultation” may be.

Before drafting, the editor should be able to state:

• Who is this for?
• What real question does it answer?
• What can this firm add that a generic summary cannot?
• Who is qualified to contribute or review it?
• What sources support the consequential claims?
• What should the reader understand or do afterward?

Our seven publication requirements

1. A named human owner

Every substantive article has an identifiable author or contributor. A legal page receives appropriate attorney review before publication. A byline must lead to useful background—not an empty author archive.

2. Original contribution

The piece should contain analysis, experience, examples, distinctions, a framework, or a clearer explanation. Rewriting the first ten search results is not research.

3. Primary evidence where available

Statutes, rules, courts, agencies, official forms, original studies, and source reports take priority over secondary summaries. The language surrounding a citation must not claim more than the source supports.

4. Visible boundaries

Jurisdiction, publication date, factual dependence, uncertainty, and the difference between general information and legal advice should be clear. Confidence is not improved by hiding a limitation.

5. Human editorial review

AI-assisted drafts receive review for accuracy, structure, voice, unsupported claims, repetition, tone, and usefulness. Legal accuracy remains the law firm’s responsibility.

6. Technical completeness

Titles, descriptions, headings, internal links, canonicals, author connections, Article markup, accessibility, and mobile presentation help people and systems understand the work. They support the content; they do not redeem it.

7. Honest maintenance

Update a page when the law, source, process, firm, or practical guidance changes. Do not change the date to simulate freshness. Record meaningful revisions.

How AI may be used

AI may help organize an interview, compare outlines, find questions requiring research, identify repetition, produce an initial structure, test clarity, suggest internal links, and generate alternative phrasing. It may also assist with structured data and quality checks.

AI may not invent attorney experience, case results, quotations, client stories, statistics, citations, or legal authority. It may not make the final legal or ethical determination. It may not turn one approved article into dozens of thin location variations.

The city-page rule

A location page must contain more than a changed city name. It should reflect a genuine market the firm serves and provide specific value: office or service facts, court or agency context, attorney connection, local resources, real questions, original information, and a useful client path.

If the page cannot survive after removing the city name, it is probably not ready to publish.

The final editorial test

Before publication, ask whether the responsible attorney would confidently send the page to another lawyer, a sophisticated client, a journalist, or a family member. Would that reader learn something? Could the claims be defended? Is it clear who stands behind the work?

If not, more words will not solve the problem.

Source

• Google Search Central: Creating Helpful, Reliable, People-First Content

This editorial policy describes Searchooli’s publishing process. It is not legal advice.