199 lines
8.9 KiB
Markdown
199 lines
8.9 KiB
Markdown
# 03 — Content and voice
|
||
|
||
Authority: `AGENTS.md` §4 (claim register) and §5 (audience model).
|
||
Source material: `PL_ADR_Personal_Branding_Strategy_Brief.docx` (2026-05-26) and
|
||
`ADR_Site_Content_Brief_for_Claude_Design.md` (2026-05-26).
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## The one rule
|
||
|
||
**Every factual claim traces to `AGENTS.md` §4 Verified.** Read the Forbidden
|
||
table before writing any number, statistic, or superlative. If you need a fact
|
||
you do not have, write `TODO(pouya): <exact question>` and log it in §9. Do not
|
||
infer, do not soften, do not carry anything over from the old site.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Voice
|
||
|
||
**Restrained, precise, and unhedged.** The reader is usually a lawyer. They
|
||
detect padding instantly and discount everything after it.
|
||
|
||
**Do:**
|
||
|
||
- Short declaratives. "I read the contract and the code." Not "clients benefit
|
||
from a uniquely multidisciplinary perspective."
|
||
- First person singular. This is a practitioner brand — "I", not "we", not "the
|
||
practice". The old site's "we" implied a firm that does not exist.
|
||
- Concrete nouns. *Lien claim. Change order. System Impact Assessment. Model
|
||
card. Minutes of settlement.* Specificity is the credential.
|
||
- Name the limits. "Sole-arbitrator appointments follow the Q.Arb designation;
|
||
co-arbitration and tribunal-secretary work is available now." Precision about
|
||
what you cannot yet do makes the rest believable.
|
||
- Plain words over Latin. "Without prejudice" survives because it is a term of
|
||
art; *inter alia* does not.
|
||
|
||
**Do not:**
|
||
|
||
- **Any claim or implication of legal licensure.** D13: the site asserts the JD
|
||
and nothing more. Never "lawyer", "called to the bar", "licensed", "my law
|
||
practice", "my litigation practice", "my clients", "acts for", "represents".
|
||
Implication counts as much as assertion.
|
||
|
||
**The approved phrasing is "active litigation exposure" or "involvement in
|
||
litigation and ADR matters" — never "practice" in that context.** Pouya's
|
||
wording, 2026-08-26. So: *Director of Firm Operations at a Toronto litigation
|
||
and ADR boutique, with active exposure to construction, personal injury, POA,
|
||
and SABS matters.* Accurate, specific, and it claims nothing it should not.
|
||
|
||
This framing is **interim** — see `AGENTS.md` §12 R1. Raise it with Pouya
|
||
rather than letting it settle in by default.
|
||
- Superlatives. No "leading", "premier", "top-rated", "best". LSO marketing rules,
|
||
and they read as insecure.
|
||
- Outcome language that could be read as a guarantee.
|
||
- "Passionate", "dedicated", "committed", "proven track record", "results-driven",
|
||
"leverage", "synergy", "solutions".
|
||
- Hedges that erase the claim. The strategy brief warns specifically against
|
||
softening the technical claim to "technologically literate" — **the claim is
|
||
engineering practice, so the copy says engineering practice.**
|
||
- Em-dash-heavy rhythm and tricolon padding. One idea per sentence.
|
||
- Second-person sales copy on counsel-facing pages. `/for-parties/` is the one
|
||
page written to "you".
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## The core positioning statement
|
||
|
||
Reused, adapted, across the hero, the About page, and the PDF bio:
|
||
|
||
> The dispute resolution practice of Pouya Lajevardi — a credentialed neutral
|
||
> who is also a working litigator and a practising machine-learning and
|
||
> infrastructure engineer. Built for commercial, construction, energy,
|
||
> technology, and cross-cultural disputes that turn on facts most neutrals take
|
||
> on faith: the contract, the code, the engineering documents, and the
|
||
> regulatory overlay around them.
|
||
|
||
Every version of this must survive the §4 check. It does: each element is
|
||
verified.
|
||
|
||
## Approved headline options
|
||
|
||
From the content brief; all three sit honestly with the practice.
|
||
|
||
1. *A mediator who reads the contract, the code, and the room.* — **recommended.**
|
||
The cleanest one-sentence statement of the moat, and rare because it is rare.
|
||
2. *Engineered for the cases that don't fit a courtroom.*
|
||
3. *Disputes resolved by someone who has been on every side of one.*
|
||
|
||
## The credential row
|
||
|
||
Three slots, never counts:
|
||
|
||
| Slot | Value | Label |
|
||
|---|---|---|
|
||
| 1 | **Q.Med** | ADRIC / ADRIO designation |
|
||
| 2 | **JD + ML** | Law and engineering |
|
||
| 3 | **EN · FA** | Bilingual practice |
|
||
|
||
Fourth slot where the layout has one: **Q.Arb** — in progress.
|
||
|
||
The substitution principle (`AGENTS.md` §4): wherever the design wants a "how
|
||
many", substitute a longer-arc credential. These are all true at launch and stay
|
||
true; none grows by closing files.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Per-page copy notes
|
||
|
||
### Home
|
||
Hero headline from the approved list. Positioning paragraph above. CTAs:
|
||
*Request a consultation →* and *How I work*. The approach section makes the
|
||
"two directions at once" argument — law and engineering converging on the same
|
||
dispute — and keeps the infinity metaphor: *disputes are loops; the work is
|
||
redrawing the loop into a line.* First person: "my mark", not "our mark".
|
||
|
||
### About
|
||
400–600 words of narrative, then structured credentials. Tell the three tracks
|
||
as one arc, not three lists: a JD and an active litigation practice; a parallel
|
||
career in machine learning and infrastructure engineering; a company run
|
||
alongside both. The arc is the point — the credentialing pathway from Q.Med
|
||
through Q.Arb to C.Med-Arb is stated openly as in progress. The brief treats
|
||
that arc as part of the story rather than something to obscure.
|
||
|
||
Omit any section that would be empty. No "Speaking" heading until there is a
|
||
talk to list.
|
||
|
||
### Mediation / Arbitration / Med-Arb
|
||
Procedural, specific, unembellished. Name the rules. Describe the formats. State
|
||
what a party should expect to do and when. On `/arbitration/`, state the Q.Arb
|
||
position in plain terms — what is available now versus what follows designation.
|
||
|
||
`/med-arb/` addresses the procedural-fairness objection directly: the same
|
||
neutral who heard a party's confidential caucus later decides the matter. Do not
|
||
elide it. Explain the consent mechanics and when the process is inappropriate.
|
||
Meeting the strongest objection is what makes the page worth reading.
|
||
|
||
### Practice areas
|
||
Each page: dispute types, why this practice fits, what the process looks like,
|
||
and the market context that makes the area live. Context comes from the strategy
|
||
brief §III–IV — Ontario's megaproject pipeline, Bill 40 and grid connection, the
|
||
2026 privacy statute, LAT volumes.
|
||
|
||
**Frame as positioning, not as history.** "Built to facilitate procurement and
|
||
subcontract disputes on Ontario's megaproject pipeline" — not "extensive
|
||
experience resolving". The first is true and forward-looking. The second is
|
||
neither.
|
||
|
||
### Process
|
||
Five steps with real timing. Say what happens if the matter does not settle —
|
||
counsel want to know the downside shape before they commit a client's day.
|
||
|
||
### Fees
|
||
**Blocked on Q4.** Real numbers or `TODO(pouya)`. Plain table, no "starting from"
|
||
evasions, no "contact for pricing" after promising a rate card.
|
||
|
||
### For parties
|
||
The one page in second person. Grade-9 reading level. Short sentences. Says
|
||
explicitly: the mediator is not your lawyer and cannot give you legal advice; the
|
||
mediator does not decide who is right. Answers what it costs and what happens if
|
||
you do not settle.
|
||
|
||
### Insights
|
||
1,200–1,800 words, monthly cadence (brief §VIII). Territories from §VII:
|
||
process explainers · regulatory commentary · industry dispute commentary ·
|
||
anonymised reflections · technical explainers for lawyers · credentialing content.
|
||
|
||
Every piece links to at least one practice-area page. Anonymised reflections must
|
||
be genuinely unidentifiable — not merely name-stripped. If a matter could be
|
||
recognised by the parties to it, it does not run.
|
||
|
||
### Launch article slate (D9)
|
||
Drafted by Claude, **every word reviewed by Pouya before publication**:
|
||
|
||
1. *What the Ontario data-centre build-out means for dispute resolution* —
|
||
technology + construction; the strongest single differentiator piece.
|
||
2. *When Med-Arb is the right answer, and when it is not* — process explainer;
|
||
feeds `/med-arb/`; high search intent, thin competition.
|
||
3. *Bill 40 and grid connection: a dispute-resolution read* — regulatory
|
||
commentary; establishes the energy niche.
|
||
4. *What a System Impact Assessment actually evaluates* — technical explainer for
|
||
lawyers; the clearest demonstration of the claim the whole brand rests on.
|
||
5. *Choosing a neutral: what counsel should actually ask* — evergreen, useful,
|
||
and it makes the case for this practice without arguing for it.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Compliance checklist — before any page ships
|
||
|
||
- [ ] Every factual claim appears in `AGENTS.md` §4 Verified
|
||
- [ ] No matter counts, settlement rates, dollar figures, or time-to-award stats
|
||
- [ ] No testimonials, endorsements, or third-party quotes
|
||
- [ ] No superlatives and no guarantee language
|
||
- [ ] No claim or implication of legal licensure anywhere (D13)
|
||
- [ ] Q.Arb described as commenced August 2026, never as held or nearly complete
|
||
- [ ] Nothing implies a firm, a team, or offices that do not exist
|
||
- [ ] Contact page states that an inquiry creates no retainer and no
|
||
mediator–party relationship
|
||
- [ ] Any comparative claim is factual and verifiable
|