Editorial Standards

Claude for Lawyers publishes under an organizational byline rather than individual names. That puts the burden of trust on our process instead of a resume, so here is the process, stated plainly enough to be held against.

How content is produced

We practice what we teach: drafts are produced with Claude and reviewed, verified, and edited by humans before publication. Nothing ships on the strength of fluent output alone. That is the same AI-drafts, humans-verify discipline we recommend to every law firm we write for.

Verification rules

• Ethics guidance is checked against the primary source: ABA opinions, state bar opinions, and the Model Rules themselves, not summaries of them.
• Product claims about Claude (models, plans, data terms, features) are verified against Anthropic's current documentation at the time of publication, and time-sensitive posts carry a visible updated date.
• Statistics are cited to their origin. If we cannot find the origin, we do not use the number.
• Quotations are linked to where they were said. Unverifiable quotes do not run, no matter how good they sound.
• Comparisons (Claude vs. Harvey, Claude vs. ChatGPT) are grounded in published pricing and documentation, updated when the facts change, and written to be even-handed enough that either vendor could read them without objection.

Corrections

When we get something wrong, we fix the page, bump its updated date, and note material corrections in the text. Errors can be reported to hello@claudeforlawyers.com; we read everything.

What we are not

Nothing on this site is legal advice, and nothing here creates an attorney-client relationship. We write about how lawyers can use AI tools well; the professional judgment in any matter belongs to the licensed attorney handling it. Our about page covers who we are and why the site exists.