Editorial standards

Our standard: publish for the person facing the problem, ground consequential statements in current primary sources and make limits or uncertainty easy to see.

We start with primary sources

California legal guides begin with California Courts, statutes, rules of court, official forms and superior-court instructions. Secondary sources may help us identify questions, but they do not replace controlling or official material.

We state the scope

Every guide should identify which court system, location, and situation it covers. We avoid presenting a common deadline, form, or process as universal when delivery of papers, local rules, court orders, or case details may change the answer.

We review before publishing

A guide is checked against its linked sources, edited for plain language and reviewed for unsupported certainty. When attorney review has occurred, we will name the reviewer and the review date. We will not imply legal review that did not happen.

AI can assist, but it is not the author of record

AI-assisted tools may help research, draft and organize text, or identify language that needs clarification. A person remains responsible for source checking, scope, final wording and publication. We do not mass-publish unreviewed AI summaries.

Dates and corrections stay visible

Guides display an updated date and link to the official material used. Important corrections should change the page promptly and update that date. To report an issue, email support@courtahead.com with the page and a record or official link that supports the correction.