Resources
Editorial policy for legal automation content
Direct answer: LegalDoc.app content is written for search intent fit, conservative legal positioning, operational depth, and auditable update cadence.
Why this policy exists
Legal content quality problems are predictable: intent mismatch, thin pages, repeated boilerplate, and claims that outrun implementation. This policy exists to prevent those failures. Every marketing and resource page should help legal practitioners make better workflow decisions, not just absorb generic information. We treat copy quality as part of product quality because misleading or vague content creates operational confusion and weakens trust.
The editorial standard is practical and defensive. We prioritize direct answers, transparent boundaries, and concrete process guidance. We avoid unsupported performance promises and avoid language that implies legal representation by the platform itself.
Intent-first writing
Every page starts with direct answer copy that matches dominant search intent before expanding into implementation guidance.
Conservative claims
Content avoids legal representation claims and keeps explicit non-advisory boundaries wherever workflow guidance is presented.
Operational depth
Pages must include concrete steps, decision criteria, failure modes, and checklists instead of generic thought-leadership language.
Update governance
Pages are reviewed on cadence and revised when product behavior, policy boundaries, or recurring user questions change.
Publishing workflow and quality gates
Content is written and reviewed in stages. A page is not publishable until each stage is complete and claims are validated against actual product behavior.
- Define search intent and target audience before writing title and intro.
- Draft direct-answer section with primary keyword placement in natural language.
- Add workflow detail, examples, and escalation boundaries tied to product behavior.
- Run on-page review for headings, internal links, schema, and snippet clarity.
- Publish only after legal-operations review confirms defensible claims.
Related references: legal automation guide, contract review checklist, and blog standards in practice.
Common intent mismatch patterns and fixes
Commercial-intent query answered with generic educational copy
Lead with product-fit criteria, implementation boundaries, and a direct next-step path.
Informational query redirected into sales language
Prioritize neutral explanation first, then add optional product links as supporting paths.
High-risk legal topics framed as definitive legal guidance
Use conservative language, explicit non-advisory boundaries, and escalation guidance to licensed counsel.
Broad keyword targeting across multiple pages without differentiation
Assign one primary intent/keyword per URL and expand supporting pages around adjacent intent variants.
Editors should review these patterns before publication and during monthly refresh cycles. This prevents recurring mismatch between what users search for and what each page actually delivers, which improves both ranking stability and conversion clarity.
Depth gate checklist before publish
- Include implementation sequence with ownership and decision checkpoints.
- Add at least one concrete failure mode and mitigation path.
- Map supporting internal links to next-step execution pages.
- Confirm claims can be traced to live product behavior and policy boundaries.
Editorial decision framework
Every update should answer three questions before publish. First, does the page still match the intent a searcher has when they land on this URL. Second, does the page include enough implementation detail for a legal team to take a concrete next step. Third, do claims stay inside what the product and policies actually support today. If any answer is no, the draft is not ready.
Intent fit
Keep one dominant use case per URL and remove adjacent topics that belong to separate pages.
Operational depth
Include ownership, workflow sequence, and measurable outputs so teams can execute the guidance.
Claim defensibility
Avoid implied guarantees and state boundaries clearly, especially around legal advice and representation.
During quarterly audits, editors should sample high-traffic pages and confirm they still provide direct answers in the opening section, implementation guidance in the body, and clear next-step links in the closing sections. This keeps content useful as workflows, features, and legal operations priorities evolve.
Editorial policy FAQ
How does this policy reduce thin content risk?
It requires implementation depth, direct answers, and review checklists on every major page so content remains useful and decision-oriented.
How often is content reviewed?
Core pages are reviewed monthly and immediately after major workflow or policy changes that affect factual accuracy.
Are AI-generated drafts published directly?
No. Drafts require manual review and editing for legal defensibility, intent fit, and claim accuracy before publication.
Does this policy replace legal review requirements?
No. It governs content quality and still requires licensed legal counsel for legal advice and representation matters.
Editorial quality is treated as an ongoing operations discipline. Pages are revised when intent changes, product behavior changes, or governance guidance improves, so readers can rely on current and actionable content.
To prevent keyword cannibalization, each primary page is mapped to one intent and one main decision task. Adjacent pages are then positioned as supporting paths with distinct scope and internal-link roles. This keeps coverage deep without duplicating the same answer across multiple URLs.
Maintain an intent map document and review it before any major content launch.
This governance habit reduces overlap between pages and keeps every URL accountable to a clear user objective.