Verification and Fact-Checking Policy
We verify every legal citation, professional claim, and technology statement before publication so legal professionals can rely on Lex Wire content for client work, compliance, and education.
Last Updated: November 2025
Core principle: Nothing is published on Lex Wire without a clear source path. Legal content is checked against primary sources first, secondary sources second, and industry sources last. Where verification is not possible, we label it clearly as analysis or commentary.
1. Fact-Checking Standards
Accuracy requirements
Every content type must meet the same baseline:
- Legal information: cases, statutes, rules, agency guidance checked against an official or authoritative source.
- Professional claims: credentials and roles verified against bar, LinkedIn, firm sites, or direct confirmation.
- Data and statistics: sourced to a current, reputable publisher or government dataset.
- Technology claims: verified through the vendor, documentation, or observed product behavior.
Verification workflow
- Source review. Identify primary sources for every legal assertion.
- Citation check. Confirm case name, reporter, court, year, and current status.
- Professional verification. Confirm author or contributor is qualified to discuss the topic.
- Cross source compare. Check high impact statements against at least one additional source.
- Editorial review. Editor confirms clarity, scope, and jurisdiction labeling.
- Publish with audit trail. Notes on sources are retained for later corrections or updates.
2. Source Hierarchy
Primary legal sources
- Official court opinions and orders
- Federal and state statutes and regulations
- Agency guidance and rulemaking dockets
- Official legal databases such as Westlaw, LexisNexis, or government portals
Secondary legal sources
- Law reviews and peer reviewed legal journals
- Bar association resources and ethics opinions
- Established legal publishers and treatises
- Accredited legal education materials
Professional and industry sources
- Legal tech vendors with published documentation
- Research groups and think tanks
- Subject matter experts with verified credentials
3. Content Specific Protocols
Legal analysis and commentary
- Link or citation to the controlling authority whenever possible.
- Clear separation between black letter law and editorial opinion.
- Jurisdiction and effective date stated when relevant.
- Disclaimer added when content is educational, not legal advice.
AI and technology coverage
- Product capabilities are checked against current release notes.
- Security, privacy, and compliance claims use vendor or regulator documentation.
- Benchmarks, model names, and version numbers are dated.
- Where information is evolving, we note that it is subject to change.
4. Quality Assurance Timeline
| Content type | Verification window | Review path |
|---|---|---|
| Breaking or time sensitive legal update | 0 to 2 hours | Primary source check then follow up within 24 hours |
| Long form legal analysis | 24 to 48 hours | Citation check, SME review, editorial signoff |
| Professional development or CLE content | 3 to 5 business days | Accuracy check, education standards check, accessibility review |
| AI and legal tech guides | 48 to 72 hours | Feature verification, doc review, source dating |
5. Error Handling and Corrections
Priority error protocol
- Assess severity and impact on legal practice.
- Fix the page and add a dated correction note.
- Notify the reporting party if they identified themselves.
- Check related pages for the same error pattern.
For the full corrections workflow, see our Corrections Policy.
6. Reader Reporting
We invite attorneys, legal ops leaders, marketers, and technology vendors to flag inaccuracies or missing citations.
- Corrections: [email protected]
- Editorial and source questions: [email protected]
- Ethics and standards: [email protected]
Verification and Quality Contact
For documentation on our source path, bar related questions, or AI governance alignment, email [email protected].