Common Law Chambers — Written To Be Read By Foreign Counsel
The Problem
This firm’s work is cross-border, and its enquiries frequently do not come from the client at all. They come from a law firm, in-house counsel or an adviser somewhere else, looking for a Nepal-side counterpart to instruct on a transaction or a dispute.
That reader is assessing something specific: can this firm operate in the vocabulary of international practice — arbitration, foreign investment structuring, regulatory approvals — or will every instruction need translating. A site written to reassure a domestic walk-in client reads, to them, as evidence of the wrong answer.
What We Built
A site positioned as an international law firm in Nepal rather than a Nepali firm that also takes foreign work, with corporate law, litigation, arbitration and foreign investment as the four things it leads on.
Under that, a page per instruction a foreign client actually issues — company registration, immigration and citizenship, and the rest — plus a legal updates section, which for this audience is the credibility signal that matters: it shows the firm is tracking Nepali regulatory change rather than reacting to it when instructed.
The Decision That Shaped It
Arbitration is given the same prominence as litigation. Cross-border contracts overwhelmingly specify arbitration rather than local courts, so for the intended reader it is not a niche practice area — it is the first thing they check for. Burying it under general dispute resolution would have failed the exact enquiry the site exists to win.
What It Does
- International positioning carried in the structure, not just claimed in the copy
- Corporate, litigation, arbitration and foreign investment as the leading practice areas
- A page per instruction, including company registration and immigration or citizenship
- A legal updates section, which is the credibility test for instructing counsel
- Office location and direction stated plainly, for clients arriving from abroad