Editorial and Legal Review Policy

This policy applies to AdvocEasy public legal tools, court document formats, explanatory articles, legal-reference notes and other pages that may influence professional legal work. Product marketing and account policies follow the same accuracy standard but may not require advocate review when they make no legal interpretation.

We prefer sources in this order:

1. Current statutes, rules, gazette notifications and official court materials.
2. Official government reference documents, with their legal status stated.
3. Reported judgments and court orders when a proposition requires case law.
4. Secondary commentary only to locate or contextualise a primary source, not as the sole basis for a legal claim.

A source date records when the underlying material was issued or last checked. Sitemap dates record a real content change. They are not replaced with the date of every software build.

A section number, heading or stated correspondence can be transcribed and structurally tested. A conclusion about whether a provision changed, how a savings clause applies or what a court will accept requires legal judgment. Our data model keeps these claims separate and shows the current provenance of a row.

The full method used for the criminal-code tools is documented in How our concordance mappings are produced.

Interpretive legal content and court formats remain marked as drafts until the required review is complete. Draft pages are excluded from the production sitemap, carry a noindex instruction and are not promoted through the public tools hub or footer. Preview environments can show draft pages so reviewers can inspect the final layout before sign-off.

A deterministic calculator can clear publication when every formula is tied to a dated primary source, boundary conditions are tested, and the result is clearly labelled as an estimate. That approval does not convert arithmetic into legal advice.

• Machine matched: extracted or derived by a tested process, without a legal conclusion.
• Official concordance: supported by the identified official correspondence and checked against the relevant primary text for the stated scope.
• Advocate verified: the named reviewer signed off the stated page or row as at the review date.
• Sources disagree: a material conflict is visible and no single answer is presented as settled.
• Not yet reviewed: the permitted source fields do not establish a legal conclusion, so the content does not guess.

Legal contributor and reviewer credits use real names and confirmed credentials. An author credit records who researched, drafted or prepared the material. A reviewer credit records a separate, page-specific legal review. Neither implies an advocate-client relationship, a guarantee of registry acceptance, or approval of every page on the site.

Legal contributors

• Shrinandhini S Advocate, Madras High Court and Madurai Bench

Legal reviewers

• Saseendran V Advocate, Commissioner of Oaths, Madras High Court
• Vijayalakshmi V Advocate, Chennai Courts

Contributor and reviewer profile pages remain excluded from search until an approved biography, photograph and responsibility statement are supplied. This avoids publishing incomplete identity pages as SEO content.

AI tools may assist with structure, language or internal checks, but an AI response is never treated as a legal source. Public legal analysis requires a human to verify the proposition against the cited material. We do not publish fabricated quotations, authorities, statistics, testimonials or performance claims.

Material corrections update the page, its last-modified date and, where useful, a visible note explaining the change. A source update triggers review of affected formulas, mappings or formats rather than a silent date bump. Superseded downloads are regenerated from the same approved source as the page so the two versions cannot drift.

To report an error, email support@advoceasy.in with the URL, exact passage, proposed correction and supporting source. We prioritise errors that could affect a filing, deadline, fee, section reference or data-handling choice.

Transparent sourcing and review reduce risk but do not remove the need to examine the current law and facts. The Legal Disclaimer explains the limits that apply to tools, formats, AI output, notifications and reviewer credits.