How Addison Law Firm reviews and maintains website content

This proposed policy would apply to legal articles, practice-area pages, location pages, resource guides, attorney biographies, case-result descriptions, and other public material controlled by Addison Law Firm. Each family has a different review need. A statute-heavy guide calls for source and legal review; an office-hours update may require only factual and operational confirmation.

An author name identifies the person credited for the published work. It does not, by itself, prove that every proposition was independently checked on the publication date. A separate attorney-review record should identify the reviewed source version, the reviewer, and the date. The public page should make only the review claim supported by that record.

Technology may assist research, transcription, organization, or drafting. Responsibility cannot be shifted to a tool. Before legal material is released, a lawyer or designated reviewer should confirm the cited authority, remove unsupported facts, check the page in its rendered context, and decide whether the proposed language is fit for publication.

For statutes, court rules, regulations, agency procedures, filing routes, and court information, the preferred source is the current official publisher. A secondary source may help explain a subject, but it should not silently replace the controlling text. Quoted language should be checked against the source actually linked or retained in the review file.

A publication date tells the reader when material first appeared. A reviewed or updated date should appear only when someone performed a meaningful check and the record identifies what was reviewed. A mechanical formatting change, regenerated social image, or changed footer does not justify representing that the legal substance was updated.

Legal rules, agency pages, personnel, technology, and local procedures change. The firm cannot promise that every page is current at every moment. High-consequence material should have a defined recheck trigger, such as a source change, appellate decision, statutory amendment, broken official link, reader correction, or scheduled audit.

A reader who spots a broken citation, outdated process, factual error, accessibility problem, or confusing passage may contact the firm through the published contact page. The firm should assess the original source, the rendered statement, and the consequence of leaving it unchanged. A material legal or factual problem should be corrected promptly or the page should be held from publication while it is reviewed.

Small punctuation or style edits do not require a public correction note. A correction that changes the legal rule, eligibility, filing route, deadline discussion, quoted authority, result description, attorney credential, or other material representation should leave an internal audit trail. When the original statement could have affected a reader's decision, a visible clarification may be appropriate.

Editorial independence does not erase the site's purpose. This is a law-firm website and its pages may describe services. Oklahoma Rule of Professional Conduct 7.1 requires communications about a lawyer's services to avoid false or misleading statements. Comparisons, credentials, results, and experience claims therefore require support and context, not promotional shorthand.

Website material is general information. It does not identify every exception, preserve a deadline, create an attorney-client relationship, or establish that Addison Law Firm will accept a matter. Results depend on facts, governing law, evidence, parties, courts or tribunals, procedural posture, and time-sensitive requirements that a general page cannot resolve.

Sending a correction, question, or case description does not itself create representation. A relationship begins only when the firm and client agree to it through an authorized engagement. Even before engagement, information submitted while seeking legal services may carry professional responsibilities that cannot be reduced to a website slogan.

The better promise is a process the firm can prove: use reliable sources, state uncertainty plainly, retain review evidence, correct material errors, and invite readers to verify time-sensitive information. The current public credentials and universal-review statements remain outside that promise until they are reconciled against current records.