Algeria AgencyIndustries
Law and accountancy: your client does not buy advice, they buy a deadline met
They can judge neither your analysis nor your advocacy. They can judge a delay, a reply, and a document list that was right first time.
A client handing a file to a lawyer or an accountant is buying something they will never be able to assess. They cannot say whether the analysis was right, whether the strategy was the best available, or whether another practice would have done better.
They can, however, assess three things with perfect precision: whether the deadline was met, whether they got a reply, and whether the document list they were given was right first time.
Those three look administrative and they are in fact the whole of what they perceive of your work. They are what a recommendation rests on, and so they are where to look rather than at communication.
This article is written like the healthcare and banking ones: it starts with what cannot be said, then covers what remains — and what remains is more decisive than it appears.
What is governed, and what remains
Regulated professions are governed in how they communicate, and the governing bears mainly on solicitation, comparison and the promise of a result.
Not promisable: an outcome, an amount obtained, an assessment avoided, a timescale that depends on a court or an administration. Those are promises the nature of the work itself makes impossible to keep.
Also not done: named comparison with a colleague, direct solicitation of another practice’s clients, and any wording suggesting privileged access to an administration or a court. The last is the gravest and it nevertheless circulates.
What remains is entirely lawful and widely underused: saying who you are, what you handle, what you do not handle, how to reach you, what to bring, and what a standard piece of work costs. Six pieces of information, none prohibited, and almost no practice assembles them on one page.
We are neither ethics lawyers nor your professional body. We describe cautious, stable principles; for your own situation your body is the only authority, and we would rather send you there than guess on its behalf.
The client judges the delay and the reply, not the advice
This is the most useful sentence in the article and it is an unpleasant one: the quality of your work is not what decides your reputation, because your client has no way of appreciating it.
What they do appreciate is measurable and trivial: how long they waited for a reply, whether they were warned, how clearly they were told what to do, and the absence of an unpleasant surprise about fees.
That does not mean quality does not matter — it decides the outcome of the file, which matters more than anything. It means quality cannot be communicated, and that trying to communicate it produces the hollow pages seen everywhere in this sector.
The practical consequence is that a practice’s first project is almost never its website. It is its response time, which is an organisational problem and which produces an immediate commercial effect.
One remark that holds for both professions: a client who does not understand where their file has got to assumes it is not moving. A two-line message saying "nothing new, next step on such a date" removes half a practice’s incoming calls.
The deadline is your visible product
A return filed on time, a limitation period interrupted, an appeal deadline respected: those are the only events in your work the client sees happen.
So treat them as deliverables and announce them as such. A practice writing "your return was filed on this date, here is the reference" has delivered something; a practice filing it and saying nothing has done the same work and delivered nothing. The difference is one sentence sent, and it decides what the client will say about you.
The second consequence concerns the calendar. A client who knows their year’s deadlines from a page or a message does not discover them the day before, which removes the files assembled in a hurry — which are also the worst ones.
The third is the most commercial: deadlines are the natural occasion to make contact again. A reminder sent a month before an obligation is useful, expected, and is not solicitation since it addresses an existing client.
There is finally a defensive use not to be neglected. A practice documenting its filings and reminders in writing protects its client as much as itself, and that kind of discipline shows at the first disagreement.
The document list, once again
As in banking, the list of documents to provide is the most profitable page a practice can write, and it is nearly always the one that is missing.
It is particular here because it varies a great deal: incorporating a company, an employment dispute, an annual return and an estate do not call for the same documents, and a single list serves nobody.
The right level of granularity is the common instruction: three or four lists matching the files you handle most often, each with the originals, the copies, and what stops the file if a document is missing. Beyond four, nobody keeps them current, and an out-of-date list costs more than an absent one.
You also have to name documents the way clients name them, not the way an administration titles them. It is the same defect as in banking and it produces exactly the same effect: the person believes they do not have a document they do have.
And date the list. Requirements evolve, an undated list ends up wrong, and a wrong list in a regulated profession is more expensive than no list at all. It is also that list, once dated, that makes automatic checking of what is still missing possible — without it no tool has a reference to compare against.
Fees: what is never understood
Disagreement about fees is the leading cause of a broken relationship in this sector, and it nearly always comes from an insufficiently written engagement rather than from an excessive amount.
What has to be written: the basis of calculation — by time spent, by fixed fee, on result where that is permitted — what a fixed fee covers if there is one, what triggers a supplement, and the disbursements that are not fees.
That last line is the most often left out. Court fees, publication, bailiff, travel and translation costs are not your remuneration, and a client discovering them on a note counts them as such if nobody said otherwise.
You also have to write what happens when a file takes an unforeseen turn. A dispute that drags on, an audit that widens: the principle of a variation is settled beforehand, not at the moment it becomes necessary.
On publishing a rate, caution is required and transparency remains possible: giving an order of magnitude for a standard instruction and the criteria that make it vary beats total silence, which is read as deliberate opacity.
Where people look for you, and on which screen
A practice is looked for in two distinct situations: a periodic obligation somebody is anticipating, or a problem that has just landed. The second is urgent, anxious, and happens on a phone.
The internet market observatory published by ARPCE counts, for the second quarter of 2025, some 59.10 million internet subscriptions in Algeria, of which 88.71% are mobile and 11.29% fixed.
The consequence is that the three most-sought pieces of information — what you handle, where you are, how to reach you — have to be visible without scrolling and without a menu, and the number callable in one gesture.
The second consequence concerns your areas of practice. A firm that does not say what it handles receives irrelevant enquiries it will have to answer one by one, and misses the ones that suited it. That is a double cost, paid in reception time and in files that never arrived.
The third concerns what you do not handle. Writing "we do not act in criminal matters" or "we do not take files below this threshold" saves everybody time and has never cost a client who would have fitted.
- Mobile subscriptions88.71%
- Fixed subscriptions11.29%
ARPCE, internet market observatory, second quarter of 2025
Writing about law or tax without giving advice
Many practitioners want to write, and it is a good idea badly executed: the text slides into advice, and advice without a file is exactly what has to be avoided.
The register that works describes a course of events rather than a course of action: how a procedure runs, what stages it has, what time limits apply, what documents are needed, what makes it drag.
That register is useful, it gets read, it commits no assessment of a particular case, and it answers the questions people actually ask on the telephone. It has the further merit of reducing anxiety, which is a service in itself.
The safety rule is simple: if a text could lead somebody to act without taking advice, it is badly written. Every page of this kind should end with an invitation to have the situation examined rather than with a commercial call to action.
One last point about topical writing. Writing about a text that has just appeared is tempting and risky: the page stays online, the text is amended, and a reader applies in two years a rule that no longer exists. Date it, or do not write it.
Professional confidentiality, reviews and complaints
A practice receives public reviews like any business, and it cannot answer them like any business. Professional confidentiality forbids confirming that somebody is a client, still less discussing their file.
The tenable reply is therefore extremely short: restate that confidentiality prevents dealing with an individual situation publicly, and offer a direct channel. Nothing else, whatever the temptation.
It is frustrating and it is the only defensible position. A practitioner justifying themselves in detail on a public page commits a graver fault than the grievance they are contesting, and every subsequent reader will see it.
You also have to anticipate a review that itself discloses privileged information. Removal can be requested from the platform on that ground, which succeeds more often than a dispute about substance.
Finally, something not to do that gets done: actively soliciting reviews. A client whose file has just concluded is in an unbalanced position to refuse, and the subject of the file may itself be private. Let them come.
Recommendation remains the first channel
In these professions the great majority of clients arrive by recommendation. It is a truism of the trade and it is nearly always badly exploited, because it is treated as a passive phenomenon.
It is not entirely passive. The person recommended looks you up before calling, and what they find determines whether the call happens. A recommendation landing on a total absence of information cools by itself.
What that person needs is narrow: confirmation that you exist, what you handle, where you are, and a way of reaching somebody. Four elements, no persuasion — the persuading already happened, elsewhere, in a conversation you were not part of.
The second useful thing is knowing where your clients come from. A question asked at the first meeting — how did you hear of us — recorded in three words builds within a year a map of your sources nothing else provides.
We will not give you figures on the share of recommendations in this sector in Algeria: we know of no dated, checkable source, and a supplier quoting you one has not checked theirs either.
What can be measured in a practice
Three measures are enough and they need no tools. The first is the time to a first reply to an incoming enquiry, in hours. It is the indicator most directly linked to what your client perceives.
The second is the share of files complete at the first meeting. It measures the quality of your document lists, and it points straight at which one to rewrite.
The third is the number of calls whose only purpose is "where has my file got to". It is a thermometer for your internal communication, and it falls the moment a progress note goes out unasked.
A fourth measure, more strategic: where new clients came from, recorded in three words at the first meeting. It tells you whether your problem is being known or being chosen, and those are very different problems.
What these measures do not capture: the quality of your files. That is this trade’s paradox and it has to be accepted — what can be measured is what the client perceives, and what really matters cannot be measured from outside.
What to check before signing with a supplier
The first question is an ethical one: ask what they will refuse to write. A supplier proposing promises of a result, comparisons with colleagues or client testimonials has not met your framework and will expose you before your professional body.
The second is confidentiality: your site may have a form, and a contact form in this trade receives privileged information from the first line. Ask where it is hosted, who has access, and how long it is kept.
The third is content: will they accept every legal or tax text being reviewed and dated by a professional at your practice? An unreviewed page is unsupervised free advice carrying your name.
The fourth is maintenance: who checks that a published text still matches the applicable law, and how often? Without an answer, your best page becomes a risk within two years.
The fifth is a simple test: ask them to write the document list for a common instruction. You will see immediately whether they can write for somebody who does not know administrative vocabulary, which is the competence that matters here.
What we do, and what we will refuse to do
What we will refuse: any promise of an outcome, an amount or a timescale that depends on a court or an administration, any comparison with a colleague, and any wording suggesting privileged access to anybody. The last circulates and it is the gravest.
We will also refuse client testimonials. In a profession covered by confidentiality, a testimonial confirms that somebody is a client, which is precisely what cannot be confirmed.
A limit of competence, stated plainly: we are neither lawyers nor tax advisers, and we will publish no substantive text without a professional at your practice having reviewed, dated and accepted it. We give shape; we do not draft the law.
What we do: the areas you handle and the ones you do not; three or four document lists written in your clients’ vocabulary and dated; an order of magnitude for fees with the criteria that make it vary and the disbursements that are not fees; and a page saying when you can be reached.
And what you should do without us this week: measure your time to a first reply across your last twenty enquiries, in hours. It is free, it is the figure your client perceives most directly, and in most practices it explains more lost files than everything else combined.
Frequently asked questions
Can a practice have a website?
Yes. What is governed is the content — solicitation, comparison, the promise of a result — not the existence of a site. Saying who you are, what you handle and how to reach you does not raise that problem. For your own situation, your professional body is the only authority.
Can we publish client testimonials?
No. In a profession covered by confidentiality, a testimonial confirms that somebody is a client, which is precisely what you cannot confirm — and asking for one puts the client in an unbalanced position to refuse.
Should we publish fees?
An order of magnitude for a standard instruction, with the criteria that make it vary and the disbursements that are not fees. Total silence is read as deliberate opacity and produces a conversation you will have anyway.
How do we reply to a negative review?
Very briefly: restate that confidentiality prevents dealing with an individual situation publicly, and offer a direct channel. Nothing else. Justifying yourself in detail is a graver fault than the grievance being contested.
Can we write about a legal or tax development?
Yes, by dating the page and describing a course of events rather than a course of action. Without a date a reader will apply, in two years, a rule that no longer exists — and the page carries your name.
Where do we start if we do only one thing?
Measure and shorten your time to a first reply. It is what your client perceives most directly, they cannot judge your analysis, and in most practices it explains more lost files than everything else.
Where we come in
The delay between a first approach and your reply, measured across your last twenty, explains most of the people who never call back.
- We write what you handle and, more usefully, what you do not.
- We put your document lists into the words of whoever brings them.
- We prepare the acknowledgement reply, which runs to three lines.
No client testimonial will appear on your pages: in a profession bound by confidentiality, a client discussing their file exposes you.
Read next
AI for a professional practice: read the documents received, not the advice
A practice does not lose its time on advice. It loses it opening crooked photographs to find which of the twelve documents is still missing.The year as a calendar: turning a repeated deadline into batch work
A deadline that comes round every year is not a surprise. A practice that treats it as one endures it twelve times.The processing register, filled in on a real case
A twelve-person firm loses a tender on a document it had never heard named. Here are the six columns, filled in on a real assistant.
Let us talk about your project
A free audit, no commitment: we look at your online presence and tell you what is holding it back.