Drafts of regulatory text have a short usefulness period. Regulatory text-focused readers include compliance and in-house counsel. They won’t read to get the details of the new rule. They want to know the implementation date and whether this version of the rule will need to be defended in court next quarter.
Every document starts by identifying the current status of the rule: is it still proposed, final, in force, stayed, or withdrawn? This evaluation is done against the record of the regulator, and not against the memory of a model, which is just a snapshot from the last time it was trained.
The most important distinction is the one that is easiest to muddle. Guidance is not a rule, a proposal is not a law, and a stayed rule is neither. A writer who can distinguish the four elements gives the readers something they can act upon. A piece that lumps all four together is worse than a complete lack of communication, because compliance units develop budgets and plans in anticipation of such communication.
Training data have an expiration, rules do not. A model will reference a rule as effective in January when a court stayed it in November, or will mention a comment period that ended a year ago. For a compliance reading audience, one such mistake renders a document useless.
If you have a client alert, a house position, or the analyst’s notes, then the writer begins with that and works outwards. Where you do not have those things, the writer starts with primary sources, which include the text of the rule, the release, and the docket. Secondary sources are used to help identify other sources, and are never relied upon as a sole source.
Any statements that may appear to be advice to a firm on its legal obligations should be cleared by your firm’s lawyers before publication. We assume this step. Sources are listed to allow a reviewer to confirm the claims in a few minutes. We describe what regulators have done, and we do not try to predict the outcome of enforcement actions.
One rate, whatever the format: $10 per 100 words. You are paying for the writer’s time and judgement, so the price scales with the words rather than with a package tier.
| Typical regulatory article | Words | Writing | Fee (1%) | You pay |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| News item | 600 | $60 | $0.60 | $60.60 |
| Analysis article | 1,300 | $130 | $1.30 | $131.30 |
| Feature with sources | 2,400 | $240 | $2.40 | $242.40 |
The writer receives 100% of the writing price. Our 1% fee is added on top of it, and 0.5% is donated to tree planting. Full pricing breakdown.
What the piece is for, who reads it, roughly how long it should be, and anything it must include or avoid. Links to your existing material help. If you are unsure, send what you have and the writer will come back with questions.
Up to 3 days. The writer has to read around the subject before writing it, so we quote honestly rather than promising an hour. If your deadline is tighter, say so in the brief and we will tell you before you pay whether we can meet it.
Usually, but the reading is the job. We will always tell you the truth when we do not have a subject specialist and will not take the order. On a narrow subject, expect the writer to contact you with two or three questions prior to getting started with the drafting.
Your choice. Reported pieces show what the regulator did and what the text says. Analysis pieces express a position. We ask that the line you provide be your organization’s position, not the writer’s. Neither version forecasts a result.
Completely. Copyright transfers to you on delivery, with no attribution requirement and no licence back to us. Nothing written for you is resold, repurposed or republished.
Reviews from completed, paid orders in this category.
Compliance copy can be either overly vague or overly confidently wrong. This example is neither. The guide describes the discretion allowed by the regulation and the test to be used in those cases. In cases where the regulation does not provide discretion, the language is void and unambiguous. Internal Audit had no feedback.
I review external copy for a regulated lender, and that usually means deleting at least half of it. This had qualifiers in the right spots and no made-up stats. I only had to mark 2 sentences. That is the least I’ve marked on any outside first draft.
Body copy hit the nail on the first draft. The headline tried to be clever with a pun, but it only made sense to the person who made the pun, and that was the only person who could appreciate it. I flagged it and had four alternatives by the next morning. I used the second. Missed the first swing, but the quick fix version was well received.
We do not ask you to take the no-AI promise on trust. Each draft is run through these platforms and the reports are attached to your delivery email.
Originality.aiAI detection + plagiarism
GPTZeroAI detection
TurnitinAI detection + similarity
CopyleaksAI detection + plagiarism
Winston AIAI detection
ZeroGPTAI detection
SaplingAI detection
Content at ScaleAI detection
Send the brief, get a human draft back within 3 days. No account, no subscription, no AI.
$10 per 100 words · all of it to the writer · 0.5% to trees