Legal information should show who stands behind it.

An author credit identifies the person or editorial team responsible for preparing the material. A legal-review credit identifies the named attorney who completed a substantive review of the legal information. One does not imply the other.

A page names a legal reviewer only when its editorial record includes an approved attorney review, the reviewer, and the date of that review. The reviewer’s name links to a profile that explains the reviewer’s identity and credentials.

For statements about current law, deadlines, procedure, and government action, we look first to statutes, rules, published court decisions, and official court or agency material. Official public records support professional and firm-specific facts. Reputable secondary sources may help explain context, but they do not replace controlling authority.

Legal sources have limits. A rule may depend on a date, jurisdiction, procedural posture, or facts that a general page cannot resolve. Where a qualification matters to the reader’s decision, the copy should state it rather than flattening the rule into a promise.

Drafting, factual review, and attorney review are tracked as distinct steps. A reviewer may request changes without approving publication. Only an approved substantive attorney review can produce a public legal-review credit.

The review is tied to the version and legal substance the attorney considered. A later material change requires a new review before the credit can remain public. Formatting, layout, spelling, analytics, or other technical work does not become a legal review simply because it changes the content-management system’s update time.

Published is the documented original publication date. Updated is used when the public substance changes. Legally reviewed is the date a named attorney completed a substantive review. These dates are stored separately and are not substituted for one another.

A page without a visible review date does not carry a documented public claim of current attorney review. Readers should use the official sources linked on a page and obtain advice about their own circumstances when a legal deadline or decision matters.

Some material was published before the current attribution and review fields existed. If a reliable record establishes editorial-team authorship, the site may preserve that team credit. Missing records are not converted into a named person’s authorship or a retroactive legal review.

When older content receives a documented substantive update or attorney review, the new record can be shown from that point forward. Until then, an absent credit means the site does not have the documentation required to publish that claim; it is not proof about every step that may have occurred before the record system was adopted.

AI-assisted and other software tools may help organize research, compare text, check consistency, or support editing. They are not treated as legal authority, an author, or an attorney reviewer. A human contributor remains responsible for deciding what is published, and only the named attorney can approve a legal-review record.

Sensitive client facts, confidential communications, and private case material require separate professional safeguards. Public educational content should not reveal them or turn a client matter into a marketing example without documented permission and an appropriate legal review.