Editorial Policy
How we report, and what we will not do.
LegalAlphabet publishes careers guidance, market analysis, and reporting on the legal profession across the jurisdictions we cover. This page sets out who writes it, how it is sourced and checked, how we fix what we get wrong, and the line we hold between editorial judgement and commercial arrangements.
Who publishes this
LegalAlphabet is an independent legal careers platform. It is a small operation, not a wire service, and we would rather say so than imply a newsroom we do not have. Editorial responsibility rests with the founder, Rahul Maurya, who is named on the work he writes. You can read more about him on his author page and about the platform on our about page. Ownership and contact details are published and current; reach us through contact.
How we source
Reporting on appointments, mandates, firm moves and market developments follows a fixed rule.
- Two independent sources, or a named primary one. We do not publish a claim about a person or firm on the strength of a single secondary report. Either two independent outlets carry it, or it comes from a named primary source such as a firm's own statement, a regulator's notification, or a court record.
- Statutory and regulatory claims go to the instrument. Where we describe what a law or rule requires, we check the commencement notification, the gazette text, or a named law firm's analysis of it, rather than repeating a summary.
- Sources are listed on the article. Reporting carries a sources section so a reader can go and check us.
- We link out. Where another outlet did the original reporting, we link to them and say so. We do not launder someone else's work into ours.
What we will not publish
- Rewrites of press releases presented as independent reporting.
- Unverified claims about a named individual or firm, including deal values or client identities we cannot stand behind.
- Anything a source has asked us to keep confidential, once we have agreed to it.
- Content generated without a human author taking responsibility for its accuracy.
Corrections
We will get things wrong. When we do, we fix the article, say what changed, and date the change on the page rather than editing quietly. Our full process, and how to flag an error, is on the corrections page. Correction requests from the subject of a piece are read and answered, including when we conclude the original was right.
Editorial independence and money
This is the section that matters most, so we will be plain about it.
Nothing on LegalAlphabet buys editorial coverage. No advertiser, sponsor, subscriber, employer, or law firm can pay to be written about in our editorial reporting, to change what a piece says, or to have a piece removed. If we ever sell placement, that placement is labelled as such on the page, and it is not editorial.
We do earn money, and you are entitled to know how, because that is where the pressure on a publisher comes from. We charge for membership, for employer job postings, and for advertising. Those are disclosed on our pricing and advertise pages.
The line, stated concretely
| Editorial | Sponsored or paid | |
|---|---|---|
| Who chooses the subject | We do | The paying party does |
| Payment involved | None | Yes |
| Labelling on the page | None needed | Visibly marked as a paid placement, before the reader starts reading |
| Outbound links to the party | rel="nofollow" | rel="sponsored" |
| Editorial control of wording | Ours | Theirs, within our standards |
| Presented as news | Yes | Never |
We apply this because it is right, and because the alternative is against the rules we operate under. Google's news policies require that sponsorship, including payment or other material support, is clearly disclosed to readers, and prohibit content that conceals or misrepresents sponsored content as independent editorial. Google's search spam policies separately require that links obtained through a commercial arrangement carry a sponsored or nofollow attribute. A publisher that blurs the two is not being clever, it is risking the thing that makes it worth reading.
The Deal Record
The Deal Record is a channel through which firms and individual advocates tell us about work they have done. It is worth being precise about what it is and is not. Submissions are made by the firm or advocate, at no cost, and no payment is accepted for them. We review every submission before publishing, we may decline, and we may ask for verification. Because the subject chooses to be covered, Deal Record entries are attributed as submitted by the firm rather than presented as our own independent reporting. Outbound links to a submitting firm's own site carry rel="nofollow".
Use of AI
We use software, including AI tools, in research and drafting. That does not transfer responsibility. Every published piece has a named human author who is answerable for its accuracy, and factual claims are checked against sources by a person before publication. We do not publish auto-generated articles without that check, and we do not present a machine as an author.
Job listings are not editorial
Most roles on LegalAlphabet are aggregated from employer sites, applicant tracking systems, and public sources, and link out to the employer to apply. Listing a role is not an endorsement of the employer, and inclusion is not paid for unless a posting is marked as an employer placement. We remove roles we find to be fraudulent or misleading. If you spot one, tell us through contact.
Complaints and right of reply
If you are the subject of something we published and you believe it is wrong, unfair, or incomplete, write to us through contact and mark it for editorial. We will read it, respond, and where we are wrong we will correct it on the record. We will not remove accurate reporting because it is unwelcome, and we will say so plainly if that is our conclusion.
Last reviewed 28 July 2026. Material changes to this policy are dated here.