Use ChatGPT to prepare better SEO work.

A useful task might be to compare an existing service page with a supplied buyer-question list, or turn an approved set of service facts into a draft outline. Both tasks have inputs that a reviewer can inspect.

“Write the best law firm SEO page” leaves too much unspecified. It invites generic advice and unsupported details. Name the audience, intended action, jurisdiction, available evidence and output format. OpenAI’s guidance recommends providing relevant context and verifying important information rather than assuming a fluent answer is correct.

The following example works with public or otherwise approved content. Replace the labelled inputs with material your firm is authorised to use. It is a drafting aid, not a legal review or a promise about any particular model.

Task: review an existing law firm service page for a prospective client.

Inputs:
1. Approved page text
2. Confirmed service scope, fees and exclusions
3. Buyer questions from our approved research
4. Primary source links supplied by our reviewer

Return a table: buyer question | current answer | missing fact | proposed edit | supporting input.

Use only the supplied business facts. Mark missing facts as questions for the reviewer. Do not invent results, testimonials, qualifications, offices or legal conclusions. Separate wording edits from changes that require a subject reviewer. Do not publish anything.

First check substance. Does every business claim match an input? Are the jurisdiction and service limits correct? Does a cited page actually support the sentence? Open the source instead of relying on the displayed link title.

Then check usefulness. Can a prospective client tell whether the service fits their situation, what happens next and what information they need to provide? Remove repeated claims and headings that merely restate the keyword.

For example, if a draft turns “fees quoted after reviewing the matter” into “transparent fixed fees”, reject that change unless fixed fees are genuinely offered for that service. Better wording cannot compensate for a changed offer.

An SEO brief rarely needs a client’s complete matter history. Use public, redacted or synthetic examples where they meet the purpose. Before using any personal or confidential material, assess the selected product, account controls, processing terms, permissions and the firm’s obligations.

Do not assume every ChatGPT plan, integration or third-party tool handles data in the same way. The appropriate setup depends on the actual use and current terms. Have the responsible person approve that setup before the material enters it.

Give feedback against the source: “The fee was not supplied; remove it” is more useful than “make this better”. Ask for a revision of the affected paragraph and inspect whether the change introduced a new unsupported claim elsewhere.

Save the approved brief, sources, reviewer and final page together. That record makes the next update easier when the firm’s services or source guidance changes.

Use our broader AI SEO workflow to connect drafting with implementation, or discuss AI SEO automation if the same approved task recurs often.