LitigationLawyer.in holds its journalism to clear ethical standards. This policy explains the principles that govern our conduct — how we pursue accuracy and fairness, guard our independence, handle sources, report responsibly on the courts, and hold ourselves accountable. It complements our Editorial Policy and Fact-Checking Policy.
Accuracy and honesty
Accuracy is our first obligation. We report what is true, distinguish fact from analysis, and take care not to overstate what a court has held or what a law provides. We do not sensationalise legal proceedings, misrepresent parties or public figures, or publish claims we cannot substantiate. Where we are uncertain, we say so; where a matter is contested or unresolved, we make that clear rather than manufacturing a false certainty. Honesty extends to how we present ourselves: we are a publication, not a law firm, and we never blur that line to attract readers.
Independence and freedom from influence
Our coverage is independent of advertisers, sponsors, partners, and any advocate or firm. We do not accept payment to cover, promote, or suppress a story, and commercial relationships never shape editorial judgment. Sponsored content is clearly labelled and kept separate from editorial, and we publish no promotional coverage of legal services. This independence protects the one thing a publication cannot afford to lose: the trust of its readers.
Conflicts of interest
We take conflicts of interest seriously. Editors and contributors disclose relationships that could reasonably be seen to affect their objectivity — for example a personal or professional connection to a party, advocate, or firm involved in a matter we cover. Where a genuine conflict exists, we manage it by reassigning the work, disclosing the interest to readers, or declining to cover the matter. Advocate contributors, in particular, write in a personal educational capacity and may not use our platform to advance their own or their firm’s commercial interests.
Fairness to those we report on
Legal proceedings involve real people, and reporting on them carries responsibility. We report on courts, parties, and the profession critically but fairly, mindful of the reputational and legal stakes for individuals, of the principle that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and of the considerations that govern reporting on matters that are still before the courts. Where fairness requires it, we seek and represent the relevant side of a story, and we correct the record when we get something wrong.
Sources and confidentiality
We prefer information that is on the record and documents that are verifiable. Where we receive information in confidence, we honour our commitments to protect a source who could face harm for coming forward, and we verify tips before we publish. At the same time, we are transparent with readers about what we can and cannot confirm, and we do not present speculation as established fact. We do not pay for information in a way that would compromise our integrity.
No solicitation, no advice
As a publication, we do not solicit legal work for anyone and we do not provide legal advice. This is both a matter of positioning and a matter of ethics: presenting journalism as advice, or using coverage to funnel readers to a particular advocate, would mislead the very people we are here to serve. Our commitment to non-solicitation and non-advice is described in full in our BCI Compliance Notice.
Plagiarism and attribution
We do not plagiarise. We credit the sources and the reporting we rely on, quote others’ work only within the bounds of fair dealing and with attribution, and present our own work honestly. Passing off another’s work — or a machine’s output — as original human journalism is incompatible with our standards.
Respect for the courts and the rule of law
We cover the courts and the legal system with respect for their role and for the rule of law, which does not mean uncritically: robust, well-founded scrutiny of judgments, institutions, and the profession is part of the public value of legal journalism. We aim to criticise responsibly — on the basis of the record, in good faith, and with an accurate account of what was actually decided or done.
Corrections and accountability
When we make a mistake, we correct it promptly and transparently, and we log corrections publicly at /corrections/. We treat corrections not as an embarrassment but as part of doing journalism honestly. Readers who believe we have acted unethically, or who want to raise a concern, can write to editorial@litigationlawyer.in, and we will take the concern seriously.
Living up to this policy
An ethics policy is only as good as the conduct behind it. We regard these principles as binding on everyone who writes and edits for LitigationLawyer.in, and we expect to be judged by whether our work lives up to them. Where we fall short, we want to know, so that we can put it right.
Reporting on vulnerable people
Some legal stories involve people in vulnerable situations — victims of crime, children, or those whose identities are protected by law. We report on such matters with particular care, respecting statutory protections on identification, avoiding gratuitous detail, and weighing the public interest against the potential for harm. Where the law requires anonymity, we observe it; where it does not but publication could still cause serious harm, we consider whether the public interest genuinely justifies it.
Gifts, hospitality, and outside interests
To protect our independence, those who write and edit for us do not accept gifts, hospitality, or benefits that could reasonably be seen to influence their coverage, and they disclose outside interests that could create a conflict. We do not accept payment, in any form, to publish, promote, or suppress a story. Where a contributor has a professional interest connected to a matter — for example an advocate who has appeared in a related case — that interest is disclosed or the work is reassigned.
Conduct and social media
Our contributors’ conduct reflects on the publication. We expect those who write for us to uphold the same standards of accuracy and fairness in public commentary connected to their work for us, to avoid conduct that would compromise the publication’s independence or reputation, and to keep a clear line between their journalism for us and any separate professional practice they may have. Advocate contributors, in particular, must not use their association with us to solicit clients or promote their practice.