Problem: "Sounds Good" Is Not a Quality Definition

AI texts can be fluent and still be dangerous:

  • unclear claims,
  • too much generalizing,
  • missing process logic,
  • formulations that are vulnerable to attack.

Goal: a verifiable QA standard.

QA Criteria (Short Version)

  1. Does it help a real decision-maker? (concrete, actionable)
  2. Claims are clean (no unprovable promises)
  3. Process before tool (no tool litany)
  4. Compliance sensitivity (no legal advice, no no-go claims)
  5. Internal links are meaningful (Pillar + 2 Cluster)

Artifact: QA Checklist (Copy/Paste)

A) Content & Value

  • 1 clear angle (checklist/decision aid/anti-pattern)
  • At least 1 artifact (template, table, text block)
  • No repetition of paragraph "filler text"

B) Claims & Risk

  • No "guaranteed", "always", "legally secure" etc.
  • No implicit legal advice
  • If sensitive: alternatives/formulations offered

C) Structure

  • Lead (1-2 sentences)
  • 3-5 sections (##)
  • Conclusion + CTA (scope/KPI)

D) Consistency

  • Terms consistent (status, owner, SLA)
  • Examples fit the law firm context

E) Links

  • Link to Pillar: - [ ] 2 links to related articles

Stop Rules (No Publish)

  • More than 2 risky claims without safeguards → Stop
  • No artifacts/no concrete steps → Stop
  • Interlinking missing → Stop

KPI Block

Next Step

If you have 1 example article + your internal "no-gos", I can adapt the QA checklist so it's applicable by your team in 10 minutes.

→ Schedule initial consultation

Further reading: Take our free Digitalization Check to find out how digital your firm really is. Read our comprehensive Digital Law Firm 2026 Guide or the Law Firm Software Comparison.