LegalGPT editorial policy

Our content helps readers understand common legal concepts, prepare questions, and organize document workflows. It is general educational information, not personalized legal advice.

Templates require customization. Suitability, validity, enforceability, tax treatment, filing requirements, and consequences depend on the facts and applicable law.

• We prefer legislation, regulators, courts, government agencies, intergovernmental bodies, and other primary or official materials.
• Reliable secondary sources may explain context but should not replace available primary authority for material claims.
• Sources are selected for relevance to the stated jurisdiction and linked near the content they support.

• Each substantive page identifies its jurisdiction or states that it contains jurisdiction-neutral general information.
• We do not imply that one template works unchanged in every country or state.
• Where rules vary materially, readers are directed to local counsel or an appropriate official source.

• Every page identifies an accountable author or organizational editorial team.
• AI may assist the workflow but is not listed as a lawyer, authority, or independent reviewer.
• Attorney review is claimed only when a real named lawyer completed it and their qualification, jurisdiction, profile, and date are displayed.

We welcome supported corrections. Substantive errors are prioritized and reflected in the page content and modification or review date as appropriate.

Minor spelling or formatting changes do not reset a legal-review date. A date changes only when the corresponding substantive work occurred.