Improve Inheritance Consultation Pages for Judicial Scriveners with Claude Code

Clarify documents, deadlines, first consultation flow, and legal review. This article adapts the workflow for 司法書士事務所 and focuses on the real artifact: 相続相談ページ. The reader needs a clear page, a light form, proof, next action, and a human review path before publishing.

What This Article Covers

• Start from the reader’s anxiety, not from a generic AI explanation.
• Claude Code can sort notes, forms, FAQs, tables, and follow-up messages.
• Humans review professional judgment, contracts, costs, privacy, permissions, and industry-specific claims.
• The three use cases are 初回相談の持ち物を表にする, 相続登記義務化の不安をQ&Aにする, and 相談予約前フォームを軽くする.
• Measure ROI with 相談予約率、書類不足による差し戻し、初回面談時間、電話質問数、登記依頼化率, not only page views.

Failure Scene

The common failure is a page or email that explains what the business wants to say while the reader is still deciding whether to trust it. The first screen should show the situation, the concrete artifact, the next step, and the information the reader must prepare.

Another failure is a heavy form or vague CTA. If the reader must provide too much information before seeing the value, they leave. If the page hides cost, timing, requirements, or risk, the next contact becomes a repeated explanation by phone or email.

Workflow

Collect the existing page, common questions, operational notes, form fields, follow-up messages, and the items a human reviewer must confirm. Remove customer names, private numbers, contract details, photos, and internal information before using Claude Code.

Ask Claude Code to split the material into three groups: what the reader needs first, what the staff needs for review, and what belongs in consultation. Use references such as 法務省 相続登記Q&A, 法務局 as review anchors rather than long quotations.

Claude Code Scope and Human Review

Claude Code drafts the outline, FAQ, comparison table, form fields, follow-up email, and checklist. It also points out missing fields and weak claims. This is useful because industry pages often start from scattered notes rather than a clean brief.

Humans confirm facts, professional judgment, pricing, contracts, privacy, permissions, and legal wording. A polished page with wrong claims is worse than a plain page with verified facts.

Three Use Cases

Use case 1: 初回相談の持ち物を表にする

Use one real page or form first. Ask Claude Code to identify missing fields, reader anxiety, and the next action. Do not ask for final copy before the missing information is visible.

Use case 2: 相続登記義務化の不安をQ&Aにする

Turn repeated questions into a table or checklist. The best output is not a long paragraph. It is a small artifact that staff can copy, review, and improve.

Use case 3: 相談予約前フォームを軽くする

Create follow-up messages that match the reader’s stage. The message should include one helpful fact, one proof point, and one next step. This makes the CTA feel like guidance rather than pressure.

Copy-Paste Prompt

Act as an editor for 司法書士事務所.
Goal: improve 相続相談ページ so the reader can understand the situation, prepare the right information, and move to consultation.
Input: current page, common questions, form fields, evidence, risks, and human review items.
Output: headline, first screen, table, FAQ, form fields, follow-up message, and review checklist.
Rules: remove private data, avoid unsupported claims, attach conditions to metrics, and keep the first action easy.

Start with one artifact, not the whole website. Use the first draft to expose missing information, then ask the responsible person to fill the gaps.

Working Check Code

const page = {
  caseType: "inheritance registration for family home",
  deadlineNote: "check three-year rule and known acquisition date",
  documents: ["tax notice","family register if available"],
  consultationFlow: "first call then document checklist",
  legalReview: "judicial scrivener reviews final guidance",
  cta: "/training/"
};

const required = ["caseType","deadlineNote","documents","consultationFlow","legalReview","cta"];
const missing = required.filter((key) => !page[key]);

if (missing.length > 0) {
  throw new Error("Missing fields: " + missing.join(", "));
}

if (!page.cta.startsWith("/")) {
  throw new Error("CTA must be an internal path.");
}

console.log("Inheritance consultation page is ready for legal review.");

This small code sample checks that the minimum fields for the page are present. In a real site, connect the same idea to MDX frontmatter, JSON content, form configuration, or CSV exports.

Pitfall: Causes and Fixes

Cause: the page uses abstract strengths instead of concrete reader decisions. Fix: show the reader, situation, required information, proof, and next action. Cause: professional claims are left unchecked. Fix: mark the fields that require human review before publishing.

Cause: the CTA asks for too much too early. Fix: split a light first action from consultation details. The page should reduce friction while keeping trust.

FAQ

Q. Can Claude Code publish the page by itself?

A. No. It prepares the structure and draft. The responsible human confirms facts, permissions, cost, contracts, and industry-specific wording.

Q. What should be measured first?

A. Measure repeated questions, missing fields, response time, and conversion to consultation. Those signals often move before revenue.

ROI View

PV is useful, but it is not enough. Track 相談予約率、書類不足による差し戻し、初回面談時間、電話質問数、登記依頼化率. If the page reduces repeated work or improves consultation quality, it can be more valuable than display ad revenue.

Also track staff time. Saving a few minutes per request becomes meaningful when the workflow repeats every day.

Consultation Path

Connect the article, form, checklist, and follow-up message. For implementation support, point readers to training. The goal is a verified workflow that can be reused.

The first action is to choose one page, remove sensitive data, and ask Claude Code for missing fields.

What I Verified

I verified that this article includes an internal CTA, external references, executable JavaScript, slug, frontmatter, code block, workflow, FAQ, pitfall section, and human review path. The check code confirms the minimum fields are present.