Editorial Policy

Purpose of This Policy

This Editorial Policy explains how SG Lawyer Reviews selects, researches, writes, reviews, publishes, and updates its content.

It applies to:

Law firm reviews
Lawyer profiles
Rankings
Comparisons
Legal guides
Legal news
Cost guides
Directory listings
Interviews
User-contributed material
Sponsored and commercial content

Our objective is to publish content that is useful, accurate, fair, transparent, and clearly distinguished from advertising.

Editorial Independence

Our editorial team controls editorial decisions, including:

Which firms and lawyers we cover
Which practice areas we prioritise
Which sources we consult
How reviews are structured
How firms are evaluated
Which firms are included in rankings
How ranking positions are determined
Whether submitted content is accepted
Whether content requires correction or removal

Advertisers, sponsors, listed firms, affiliate partners, and commercial clients do not receive a right to approve independent editorial content before publication unless we expressly agree to factual verification.

A factual verification process does not permit the subject of an article to rewrite our opinions, remove fair criticism, or dictate our conclusions.

Accuracy and Source Standards

We aim to support material factual claims with credible sources.

Depending on the subject, sources may include:

Official government and regulatory publications
Legislation and court materials
Official law firm and lawyer profiles
Professional directories
Public filings and records
Reputable news organisations
Interviews and written responses
Published reports and studies
Publicly available client feedback
Other sources with relevant first-hand knowledge

We generally prefer primary sources for legal developments, regulatory information, professional status, and official announcements.

For example, Singapore Statutes Online is an official source for Singapore legislation, while Singapore Courts publishes official judgments, announcements, advisories, and procedural information.

Attribution

We identify or link to sources when doing so improves transparency and does not create an unreasonable privacy, confidentiality, security, or legal risk.

We do not knowingly present another publisher’s original reporting, analysis, or wording as our own.

Information may be summarised, paraphrased, quoted within reasonable limits, or combined with our independent research and analysis.

Distinguishing Fact From Opinion

We aim to distinguish among:

Verified facts
Statements supplied by a firm or lawyer
Client opinions
Editorial observations
Reasonable inferences
Unverified claims
Allegations
Advertising statements

Opinion-based statements will be presented as opinions rather than proven facts.

When information comes directly from a law firm, lawyer, advertiser, or user and has not been independently confirmed, we may identify its source or qualify the statement accordingly.

Fairness

We aim to evaluate law firms and lawyers using criteria relevant to the subject of the page.

A negative observation must have a legitimate editorial purpose. We do not publish criticism merely to attract attention, pressure a business, or create leverage for a commercial arrangement.

When content contains a potentially significant adverse factual claim, we may contact the subject for comment before publication. Whether advance contact is appropriate depends on the seriousness of the claim, its source, the public interest, and practical considerations.

Our Right-of-Reply Policy applies after publication.

Legal News and Updates

Legal news articles should clearly identify:

The relevant date
The source of the development
Whether a change is proposed, approved, or in force
Who may be affected
The practical significance of the development
Whether further guidance is expected

We avoid presenting consultation proposals, draft legislation, or pending proceedings as final outcomes.

When reporting on court cases, we aim to describe the decision accurately and avoid implying that one judgment necessarily determines how a different matter will be decided.

Reviews

Reviews should provide readers with a balanced overview of a law firm.

A review may discuss:

Areas of practice
Professional experience
Team composition
Client focus
Accessibility
Publicly disclosed fees
Communication options
Languages
Awards
Public feedback
Strengths
Limitations
Suitability for particular clients

Reviews do not guarantee service quality or legal outcomes.

Full details are available in our Review Methodology.

Rankings

Ranking pages should identify the principal criteria used to select and order firms.

Inclusion does not mean that every firm in Singapore was evaluated. Exclusion does not necessarily indicate a negative assessment.

Full details are available in our Ranking Methodology.

Use of Artificial Intelligence

SG Lawyer Reviews may use artificial intelligence and other digital tools to support activities such as:

Research organisation
Transcription
Data classification
Draft development
Grammar and readability improvements
Content summaries
Quality checks
Duplicate-content detection

We do not treat an artificial intelligence output as an authoritative source.

Material factual claims should be checked against suitable sources before publication. Editorial responsibility remains with SG Lawyer Reviews.

Conflicts of Interest

Contributors and editors should disclose financial, professional, family, or other relationships that could reasonably affect their impartiality.

Depending on the circumstances, SG Lawyer Reviews may:

Assign the content to another writer
Add a disclosure
Seek independent review
Limit the contributor’s involvement
Decline the assignment

Corrections and Updates

We correct material factual errors when they are identified and verified.

Minor typographical, formatting, grammar, or style changes may be made without a correction notice.

Material corrections may be acknowledged on the page. Further information appears in our Corrections Policy.

Content Removal

We do not remove accurate editorial content solely because its subject disagrees with it or dislikes its conclusions.

However, we may remove, restrict, anonymise, or substantially revise content when:

It is materially inaccurate
It creates an unjustified privacy or safety risk
It contains confidential information
It infringes intellectual property rights
Its publication is unlawful
It is no longer editorially useful
The underlying subject cannot be adequately verified
Removal is required by a court or competent authority

Contact

Editorial questions may be sent to:

Email: business@sglawyerreviews.com