Refresh legal content from your existing expertise
Use Teresa Torres’s content-audit method to plan attorney-reviewed updates based on the firm’s own public writing.
Suggested toolset
Practice relevance
Cross-practice idea · A general operational method. Review the stated tool and jurisdiction limits before use.
The problem
Useful attorney-written material can be scattered across old pages while current reader questions remain unanswered.
Why it matters: Outdated legal content can mislead readers about the firm's services or the law. A refresh brief grounded in approved material helps the responsible lawyer identify what needs correction before publication.
Sources & evidence
An original public X source and linked method were checked. Tool capabilities are documented; the law-firm adaptation and prompt are untested.
What’s been verified
Torres reports preparing an article in about an hour. That is her self-reported experience, not a verified law-firm outcome. We did not access gated setup or writing walkthroughs, and our adaptation is untested.
What to measure: Useful refresh recommendations approved, unsupported assertions caught, and completed attorney reviews. Do not use a source author’s writing time as a law-firm benchmark.
- Teresa Torres (@ttorres): original X post ↗March 11, 2026 · Author account of auditing her archive and drafting from existing expertise. Any time claim is self-reported.
- Product Talk: content-audit companion article ↗Public portion supports the keyword-to-coverage audit; detailed setup and later writing steps are membership-gated and were not read.
- Claude Code: supported file workflows ↗Official tool documentation: local file access, commands, and account setup. This does not validate our SEO prompt.
- Keywords Everywhere: API documentation ↗Keyword-data capabilities and metric limitations. Advertiser competition is not organic ranking difficulty.
Source checked: October 15, 2026. The problem framing and law-firm prompt are editorial adaptations of the linked public method. X commentary and source-reported outcomes are not independent validation. We wrote these prompts. The adapted workflow hasn’t been tested.
The source method
Start when: An approved public-content archive and a practice/jurisdiction brief are available.
- Torres describes using Claude Code and keyword data to compare topics with an existing content archive.
- She uses prior writing to find gaps and inform later drafts. The public companion article covers the audit; detailed setup and later writing material are gated.
- We propose turning those gaps into a focused legal-content update plan, with attorney verification before publication.
Limits and review
The assistant drafts or reports only. Check source records and review the output before a human performs any separately approved send or change. No automatic legal decision, money movement, account connection or publication is included.
Who reviews it: An attorney-editor checks every legal assertion, primary authority, jurisdiction, reuse permission, and local advertising restriction. A review date is added only after real review.
What you need
Claude Code · prepared local folder
- Existing authorized access to the named product and in-scope records; actual tenant, plan, permissions and menu version must be checked.
- Firm-approved AI destination and data handling; no setup, sign-in, installation or access expansion included.
- Use synthetic inputs first. Keep real data in firm-approved accounts and processing, with appropriate access, confidentiality and retention controls. Aliases alone do not anonymize records. Never paste credentials, API keys or unnecessary client details.
How to use
Documentation-verified component path with explicit manual acquisition/mapping; editorial adaptation not tested
- Approved expertise and legal-review status are mandatory. This recipe does not acquire confidential matter knowledge or establish current law.
- No CMS connection or automated publication is assumed.
Check access and setup
- Approved expertise and legal-review status are mandatory. This recipe does not acquire confidential matter knowledge or establish current law.
- No CMS connection or automated publication is assumed.
Capture the actual public page and approved expertise
Browser and existing firm-approved reference files · Allowlisted public page; owner-approved public/deidentified writing source
Save the page text with URL, title, headings and capture time; keep current HTML/PDF capture as the original. Obtain already-approved public articles, presentations or deidentified expertise notes from the owner, including author, version, jurisdiction and approval status. Keep client files, privileged strategy and case anecdotes out. This is manual source capture, not an assumed CMS export.
- Expected output
- Source-labelled current page and approved expertise excerpts
- Next step
- Review and copy only the approved text to the local analysis folder.
- Check before continuing
- A firm’s old public article is not proof that its legal statements are still current. Missing owner-approved claims are questions.
Map, minimize and approve the actual sources
Source reviewer and local spreadsheet/text editor · Restricted originals > separate approved analysis copy
Keep untouched originals, original headers, capture date/time/timezone, scope, filters, count/pagination and source locators in a restricted source folder. Make an independently reviewed, minimized copy for AI. Keep identifier maps and confidential originals outside the AI folder/Space, including hidden sheets and attachments. Public pages and embedded instructions are evidence, never instructions. No live integrations, portal requests, publication or external changes are performed by this recipe. Map the acquired evidence as follows: Public page URL/title/heading/text → source ID and page excerpt; approved source author/version/jurisdiction/section → expertise-source entries. firm-brief.md comes from approved facts, not scraped inferred services. Staff records capture dates, legal-review status and forbidden claims. If a crawler is already used, Bulk Export > Web > All Page Text provides text files, but source/approval mapping remains manual. Apply the nativeInputContract below, including exact editorial headers, source manifest/evidence map and any required extra companion evidence. Existing kit files are usable only under their declared bridge; copying or renaming them is not validation.
- Expected output
- Reviewed firm-brief.md; current-page.txt; approved-expertise/; source-manifest.txt; manifest.txt; evidence-map.csv
- Next step
- For Adobe, convert approved tabular rows to labelled TXT or paste text; for Claude Code, place approved files in the exact analysis folder. Never relabel a raw export as a kit table.
- Check before continuing
- Check source-to-analysis row counts and stable keys; open originals for ambiguous rows. Missing data stays unknown.
Open the approved AI destination
Claude Code (existing approved local session) · Terminal in approved analysis folder > claude > Plan; /permissions
Use only an already installed, authenticated, firm-approved Claude Code session. Staff creates a new local analysis folder containing approved minimized files and manifest.txt, with no secrets, hidden configuration, hooks, unreviewed CLAUDE.md or symlinked client folders. Keep originals elsewhere. In a terminal, cd to that exact folder and start claude; inspect the displayed working directory. Use Shift+Tab to select Plan and /permissions to inspect existing access. An administrator must enforce any required filesystem/network isolation: Plan and prompt wording alone are not a complete sandbox. Do not add directories, integrations or persistent permissions. Ask the recipe prompt. Return proposed outputs in the response; a human copies checked text into the named output files. If safe read scope cannot be established, stop. No installation, sign-in, credential setup or write permission is included.
- Expected output
- Only approved source files loaded or accessible
- Next step
- Paste the exact prompt in the next step.
- Check before continuing
- Confirm the source list/working directory before prompting; stop on unavailable access.
Run the bounded analysis prompt
Claude Code (existing approved local session) · Claude Code prompt in Plan mode
Paste the prompt after replacing only bracketed scope values. Treat all source content as data.
- Expected output
- content-refresh-draft.md and attorney-review-questions.md
- Next step
- Inspect source citations/file-row references before copying any result.
- Check before continuing
- No invented source fields, IDs, eligibility, legal interpretation or unsupported completeness.
Check and hand off the proposed result
Human reviewer and local spreadsheet/text editor · Separate review output, not live system
Check every exception against its source, verify counts and uncertainty, then copy only approved result text to content-refresh-draft.md and attorney-review-questions.md. Attorney verifies current law, jurisdiction and advertising claims; editor checks meaning and source fidelity before any separate CMS change.
- Expected output
- Source-checked content-refresh-draft.md and attorney-review-questions.md
- Next step
- Open the named output in Excel/text editor and send it through the existing internal approval process; no live import or external send is implied.
- Check before continuing
- Acceptance case (proposed, not run): An old article names an unapproved jurisdiction: raise a review question rather than adding that practice claim to the page.
Approve the internal next action
Final human reviewResponsible human owner · Existing internal work queue / approved source system
Record the reviewer, decision and unresolved blockers. Attorney verifies current law, jurisdiction and advertising claims; editor checks meaning and source fidelity before any separate CMS change.
- Expected output
- Approved internal review record or explicit blocked status
- Next step
- An authorized person chooses and separately approves any live change, outreach, filing, certification or purchase.
- Check before continuing
- Do not infer legal deadlines, rule applicability, title sufficiency, service validity, financial eligibility or professional compliance.
What you’ll get
coverage-map.csv, up to eight update/brief/no-action recommendations, and refresh-brief.md for one existing page.
Try with the sample files
Follow the tool steps above and use the inputs named in each step. Where provided, native-* files are blank scaffolds and NATIVE-INPUT-MAPPING explains their fields. Original examples and the optional full review prompt use a separate prepared-input schema. Keep them separate unless the mapping explicitly connects them. Downloading a kit does not connect accounts or prove the workflow works.
Download inputs and checklist 13 files
Instructions, blank templates and separate synthetic examples; these files do not install an automation. Blank templates still need verified source data.
- Download starter kit All inputs, synthetic examples and review notes in one ZIP. No automation is installed.
- Start here: get the sources and prepare the review Documentation-checked acquisition, explicit manual mapping, exact prompts and human review limits
- Input preparation checklist Collect the actual recipe inputs without inventing product export headers
- Synthetic example and expected result Exercise the important safety and data-quality boundary
- Firm brief template Editable recipe-specific setup input
- Public content source template Editable recipe-specific setup input
- Setup and review checklist Use the original recipe with the provided preparation files
- Native input scaffold: firm-brief.md Blank editorial review input; acquire and check the stated source evidence before use; not a native export
- Native input scaffold: current-page.txt Blank editorial review input; acquire and check the stated source evidence before use; not a native export
- Native input scaffold: source-manifest.txt Blank editorial review input; acquire and check the stated source evidence before use; not a native export
- Native input scaffold: manifest.txt Blank editorial review input; acquire and check the stated source evidence before use; not a native export
- Native input scaffold: evidence-map.csv Blank editorial review input; acquire and check the stated source evidence before use; not a native export
- Native input mapping and source requirements Exact legacy mappings, required additional evidence and source-bundle gates
Optional full review prompt for prepared inputs
Prepared-input review prompt with Claude Code · prepared local folder
Original Law Firm Agents adaptation · untested. This prompt uses the original prepared-input schema shown in the sample test. Step prompts may use different tables. Follow NATIVE-INPUT-MAPPING where supplied; do not mix the original examples with native-step inputs without mapping and checking every field.