An AI content workflow with named review and approval.

Identify the service, audience, jurisdiction and purpose of the page. A general marketing explanation and advice about a specific person’s matter require different handling. This guide concerns a workflow for public website content; it is not a legal opinion on a firm’s compliance.

The SRA Code requires publicity to be accurate and not misleading, and addresses confidentiality. Its Transparency Rules apply to specified services and circumstances. A draft should therefore be reviewed against the obligations that actually apply to the firm and page, rather than a generic instruction to “make it compliant”.

A statement about a fee needs the firm’s current fee basis. A professional biography needs the person’s actual role and credentials. A client result needs a supportable account and appropriate permission. A legal proposition needs a current, relevant source and suitable professional review.

As an illustrative example, an AI draft might turn “we support clients with settlement agreements” into “we guarantee a higher settlement”. The reviewer should remove the unsupported promise, not soften it into another unsubstantiated outcome claim.

Keep unresolved questions in the working brief. They should not appear as invented facts or placeholder claims in the published page.

Use the minimum information needed for the task. Public service information will often be sufficient for a marketing draft. Confidential client material should not be uploaded simply to make the prose sound more specific.

Assess the tool and processing arrangement before using personal data. Separate draft generation from live publication so the person reviewing the material can stop it. A system that publishes first and asks for review later defeats the purpose of the approval step.

Approval of a document is only part of the work. Check the live title, page text, fee tables, links, author details and structured data. Schema must describe what readers can actually see; it is not a place to add stronger claims.

Set review triggers for a change in service scope, fees, personnel or source guidance. A visible update date should reflect a real review or substantive change, not an automatic refresh designed to make old material appear current.

For Scottish practices, use the relevant Scottish professional guidance instead of assuming SRA rules apply. The same care is needed for other jurisdictions and regulators.

Begin with one service page and a small approved source pack. Record the changes requested by the reviewer, then improve the next brief so those errors are less likely to recur. This creates a usable publishing process without promising that a tool can certify compliance.

Read the ChatGPT workflow example for a constrained prompt, and the AI SEO automation service for a scoped implementation discussion.