-medium.webp)
Mijar Law Associates — Routing By The Client’s Problem, Not By Legal Taxonomy
Visit site: mijarlawassociates.com.np · legal tech developer in Nepal
The Problem
A general practice covers family, criminal, corporate, property, intellectual property and immigration work. Presented as a list, that breadth becomes the visitor’s problem: they arrive with a situation, not a category, and the site asks them to classify it before it will help.
Someone whose brother has registered the family land in his own name does not know whether that is property law, family law or fraud. Faced with six practice-area labels, a fair number of people guess wrong, land on the wrong page, and conclude the firm does not handle their case.
What We Built
A page for each concrete thing a client actually needs done — company registration, contract drafting and negotiation, and the rest — rather than a page per branch of law. The taxonomy still exists for people who think in it; the entry points are written in the client’s language.
Alongside that, an FAQ section handling the questions that otherwise consume a first phone call, and a blog for the longer explanations, both under content management so the firm extends them without a developer.
The Decision That Shaped It
Each service page is a task, not a subject. “Contract drafting and negotiation” is something a client knows they want; “commercial law” is something they have to be told they want. The first earns the search and the enquiry, and the second is what most firm sites publish.
What It Does
- Service pages written as tasks — company registration, contract drafting — not as branches of law
- Full coverage across family, criminal, corporate, property, IP and immigration matters
- An FAQ that answers what would otherwise be the first call
- Blog and updates for the explanations that do not fit a service page
- Content management across services, FAQs and posts