Editorial Standards

Material factual assertions must have an identifiable evidentiary basis.

Writers must accurately represent the substance, status and context of the underlying source. Quotations must not be edited in a manner that materially changes their meaning.

Where a fact cannot reasonably be verified, it must not be presented as established.

A technically accurate statement may still be misleading when material context is omitted. Accuracy therefore applies to the overall impression of the publication, not merely individual sentences.

LegalEvidence does not use language that converts an allegation into an established fact. A person who has been:

• accused is not necessarily liable;
• sued has not necessarily lost;
• charged has not been convicted;
• investigated has not necessarily committed wrongdoing.

Where a proceeding remains unresolved, that status must be stated clearly and with appropriate prominence.

Headlines, page titles, search descriptions, social-media copy and image captions must fairly reflect the underlying record.

A qualifying sentence buried later in an article does not cure a materially misleading headline.

LegalEvidence does not use sensational language merely to increase attention, search visibility or engagement.

Words such as fraudster, criminal, scammer, corrupt, thief or equivalent characterisations must not be used as statements of fact unless their use is legally and evidentially justified in the particular context.

Where information originates from a complaint, indictment, regulator, litigant, witness or other source, attribution must be clear where necessary to understand its evidentiary status. For example:

Attribution should not be removed merely to make writing more forceful.

Material context should accompany adverse information where omission would create a materially distorted impression. This may include:

Historical allegations should not be presented as though they remain unresolved when the record establishes otherwise.

Before publication, LegalEvidence should, where reasonably practicable and appropriate, provide the subject with sufficient information to understand the substance of material adverse allegations and a reasonable opportunity to respond.

The appropriate response period depends on the complexity, urgency and circumstances of the matter.

Relevant responses and supporting evidence must be considered before publication. LegalEvidence is not required to accept a response merely because it has been provided.

Likewise, no response is not an admission.

LegalEvidence may edit responses for length, relevance, repetition, legal risk, privacy or clarity rather than publishing them verbatim.

A response must not be selectively edited in a manner that materially misrepresents the position advanced by the subject.

Where documentary evidence accompanying a response materially changes the record, it must be evaluated before publication.

The fact that a person’s name appears in a document does not automatically justify identifying that person publicly. Before naming an individual, editors should consider:

• the person’s role in the matter;
• whether identification materially advances the public interest;
• the strength of the evidence;
• privacy interests;
• vulnerability;
• foreseeable harm;
• applicable reporting restrictions;
• whether identification is necessary to understand the record.

Particular caution applies to private individuals whose involvement is peripheral.

LegalEvidence exercises heightened restraint concerning minors, victims, witnesses and vulnerable individuals.

Names, photographs, addresses or identifying information should not be published merely because they are available elsewhere.

Applicable court restrictions, privacy requirements and protections for victims or minors must be respected.

LegalEvidence may possess information that has no legitimate reason to appear publicly.

Home addresses, private telephone numbers, personal email addresses, identification numbers, financial account information, information concerning children and other sensitive personal data should ordinarily be excluded unless publication is lawful, necessary and justified by a substantial public-interest consideration.

The public record should contain what is necessary to understand the matter — not everything researchers have discovered.

Photographs, screenshots, diagrams and other visual material must not create an implication unsupported by the evidence.

Images must not be materially manipulated in a manner that changes their evidentiary meaning.

Stock imagery or illustrative material should not be presented in a way that could reasonably be mistaken for documentary evidence.

Captions must accurately describe what an image establishes.

LegalEvidence journalists and investigators may use lawful:

LegalEvidence does not authorise hacking, unlawful computer access, theft, bribery, trespass, unlawful surveillance, unlawful impersonation or fabrication of evidence.

Any exceptional newsgathering technique presenting significant legal or ethical concerns requires appropriate review before use.

Once investigation and verification have reached the appropriate stage, the journalist receives the relevant evidentiary material required to prepare the record.

The journalist’s role is not to make the evidence more dramatic. It is to explain accurately:

• what happened;
• what is alleged;
• what is documented;
• what has been determined;
• what the subject says; and
• what remains unknown or disputed.

Editorial narrative must remain within those boundaries.

Material investigations may undergo pre-publication legal review in accordance with LegalEvidence’s internal procedures, including review by legal professionals across the United States, United Kingdom and relevant Asian jurisdictions, where applicable. Review may address:

Legal review does not substitute for editorial judgment.

Journalists, researchers, editors and reviewers must disclose material personal, financial, professional or other conflicts relating to a subject.

Where a conflict could reasonably call the independence of the work into question, the individual should be recused or the conflict otherwise appropriately managed.

A source’s commercial or personal dispute with a subject must also be considered when assessing reliability.

Conflict register

LegalEvidence does not accept payment, gifts, favors or other consideration from a subject in exchange for:

Research Membership does not provide editorial control. A paying member’s evidence is evaluated under the same standards as evidence submitted by any other person.

Where LegalEvidence determines that a material factual statement is inaccurate, it should be corrected with appropriate promptness.

Where new evidence changes rather than disproves the earlier record, the publication may be updated accordingly.

Material corrections should be transparent where appropriate.

The purpose of a correction is to leave the reader with the most accurate record reasonably available — not to minimise the fact that an error occurred.

Automated systems and artificial intelligence may assist with tasks such as document organisation, search, translation, entity resolution or identifying potential research leads.

AI-generated output is not treated as evidence merely because a system produced it.

Material factual claims generated or surfaced by automated systems must be checked against reliable underlying sources before publication.

AI must not be used to fabricate quotations, evidence, sources, interviews or documentary material.

Final editorial responsibility remains with human reviewers.

LegalEvidence may structure material so that records can be found and understood through search engines and other distribution systems.

Search optimisation does not justify exaggeration.

Page titles, metadata, structured data and summaries must comply with the same accuracy and attribution standards as the underlying publication.

Material publications may carry a publication date, last-reviewed date and version history.

Where subsequent events materially affect a record, the publication should be reviewed.

An older accurate statement should not be presented without qualification where later events have materially changed its meaning.