Make Partners and Professionals Discoverable

9.1 Distinguish Firm Experience, Individual Experience, and Work Performed at Previous Employers

Attribute an experience claim to the person or organization that actually performed the work. For each proposed example, establish the professional’s employer at the time, the period, the wider assignment, the individual’s responsibilities, and the wording the firm may publish.

Separate the individual’s contribution from the wider project

“Worked on a transformation” leaves the contribution uncertain. The person might have led the program, managed one workstream, analyzed a dataset, reviewed a design, or supported delivery. Use the verb that describes the actual responsibility. A senior title does not establish that the person led every assignment mentioned in a biography.

Consulting example. Before joining the present firm, a consultant managed the procurement workstream within a broader integration program. Their role included supplier analysis, coordination of sourcing activities, and reporting to the integration leader. The biography can describe that contribution, with the earlier employment made clear. “Led the entire integration” would be a different claim requiring different evidence.

Likewise, distinguish advice from authority. Preparing options for a client is different from making the client’s decision. Managing a timetable differs from owning every technical conclusion. A useful biography explains where the professional contributed without diminishing the work performed by others.

Engineering example. An engineer developed the drainage design for a larger infrastructure project under the arrangements applicable to that assignment. Describe the discipline and role. Do not convert participation in the project into responsibility for every part of its design or construction.

The NSPE Code of Ethics provides a clear professional example: it prohibits exaggerating responsibility for previous assignments and addresses the confidentiality of present and former clients’ or employers’ information. Treat it as a professional code, not a universal statute; evaluate attribution and publication rights under the requirements that apply to the work. 

Keep previous employment visible

Earlier experience can be highly relevant to a current professional’s capability. Use an accurate chronological description such as “Before joining the firm…” or identify the earlier employer where appropriate and permitted. Keep that distinction in short biographies and selected-experience lists as well as the full profile.

Accounting example. A partner previously supervised inventory testing on manufacturing audits at another practice. That supports an appropriately qualified account of the partner’s experience. It does not establish that the current firm performed those audits, that the partner led the entire audit, or that the current firm offers the same services.

A newly hired person’s relevant experience may support a current capability description. Have the practice leader confirm the actual offering and delivery arrangements. The firm’s present ability to undertake work and its historical record of completed engagements remain different propositions.

Match the claim to evidence and permission

A curriculum vitae is a starting point for verification. For a material claim, identify the supporting record or knowledgeable reviewer. Retain the approved wording and the boundary it preserves. If the evidence establishes participation but not leadership, write participation.

Check permission separately from the truth. A person may accurately remember an assignment while lacking permission to publish the client’s name, internal results, or work product. Removing a name may still leave an identifiable engagement. Use Chapter 4’s publishing rules and Chapter 12’s detailed evidence practices.

Do not turn missing public evidence into a conclusion that a professional lacks experience. Mark the proposed claim as awaiting verification, seek an appropriate source, or use a narrower supported statement. The profile should communicate what the firm can substantiate and publish.

9.2 Write Biographies That Explain Expertise, Industries Served, and Actual Project Responsibilities

Write the biography for someone deciding whether this professional may be useful for a particular need. Begin with current work and relevant responsibilities. Education, prior employers, and distinctions should help explain that work rather than substitute for it.

Interview for specifics before writing

Ask the professional to describe a recent type of assignment in ordinary language. What was the client trying to accomplish? What did the professional personally analyze, design, lead, review, or deliver? What did colleagues and the client retain? Which parts may be described publicly?

Then ask about the circumstances in which that experience is relevant. “Manufacturing experience” becomes more informative when the profile identifies work involving multisite procurement, production planning, or an acquisition integration. Keep the description within the person’s actual experience.

Record current responsibility separately from past exposure. A person can have substantial earlier experience in a field that is no longer part of their present role. Explain the distinction where it affects whether a client should approach the firm for that service.

Use a consistent expert-profile template

The following template defines the information to consider. It does not require every biography to have the same length or every field to appear as a separate heading.

Maintain the source material, publication permissions, approved text, reviewer, and review date in an internal record. Those controls support the public biography; they need not all become visible biography fields.

Replace general praise with a specific account

Consulting example. An opening such as “A seasoned transformation leader who delivers exceptional results” supplies little information about the work. A useful replacement would be:

“The consultant leads procurement implementation work for multisite manufacturers. Assignments include designing category-management processes, coordinating sourcing workstreams, and preparing implementation reports for client executives. Before joining the firm, the consultant managed the procurement workstream of a manufacturing integration at another employer. The client retained purchasing decisions.”

In a published biography, use the professional’s name and the actual verified facts. The example gives a reader a service, a market, a contribution, and an attribution boundary. It makes no unsupported promise about future results.

Law firm example. An employer-advisory biography can explain that the lawyer’s investigation work includes scoping the inquiry, interviewing witnesses, reviewing documents, and preparing findings. The profile separately states verified admissions and relevant scope. “Handles every workplace issue nationwide” would obscure those useful distinctions.

Accounting example. A biography can explain that a professional leads monthly close improvement for owner-managed businesses, reviews reconciliations, and helps finance teams establish reporting routines. Relevant qualifications belong beside that explanation. Credential letters alone do not tell the reader what responsibilities the person undertakes.

Use a clear short version for event programs and directories. Preserve the current affiliation and any material qualification when shortening the text. A concise biography should not become broader or more categorical than the approved full version.

9.3 Verify Credentials, Professional Status, Licences, Admissions, and Specialist Designations

Verify each credential as a separate claim. A degree, completion certificate, professional designation, membership, licence, admission, and specialist certification establish different things. Use the issuer’s actual terminology and the governing requirements for public use.

Use evidence suited to the claim

Check education against appropriate institutional records or verified documentation. Check a professional designation against its issuing body. For authorization to practise, use the relevant regulator’s current record and obtain clarification where its meaning is uncertain. A copied biography is not independent verification of the credential it repeats.

Match the record to the correct person. Resolve differences in names, initials, and professional identifiers before treating a result as confirmation. Use the identifying information needed for verification without adding unnecessary personal information to the public profile.

For a U.S. CPA claim, the relevant board’s record or NASBA’s CPAverify service can support verification. NASBA describes CPAverify as drawing official public licensing data directly from Boards of Accountancy. Record the jurisdiction, reported status, and date checked. Verify the person’s employment and claim project responsibilities separately. 

For lawyers, distinguish an admission date from current status and the scope of authorized work. Have the responsible reviewer interpret the relevant record. Do not assume that every jurisdiction uses the same status labels or that an old admission statement settles every current question.

Treat formal specialist certification as a distinct claim from an area of practice. As a U.S. model-rule example, ABA Model Rule 7.2(c) conditions claims of certified-specialist status on qualifying certification and identification of the certifying organization. The responsible lawyer should check the applicable jurisdiction’s rule before approving the wording. 

For engineering professionals, distinguish examination results, an NCEES Record, and a jurisdiction’s licence. NCEES describes its Record as a verified compilation used in the application process and expressly states that it does not guarantee licensure. Verify the actual authorization before publishing a current P.E. claim for a jurisdiction. 

Maintain a credential register

Use one record for each person-credential combination, with separate entries where jurisdictions or statuses differ. Include the following fields:

• Person and credential IDs. Connect the entry to the correct professional and avoid confusion between similar names.
• Exact claim. Record the designation, qualification, membership, admission, or licence as issued.
• Issuer and jurisdiction. Identify the authority or organization and the scope relevant to the claim.
• Verification source. Retain the official link or approved supporting record and enough detail to identify the result.
• Status and dates. Preserve the source’s terminology, date checked, and effective, expiry, or renewal dates where applicable.
• Approved public wording. Include necessary qualifications and where the claim may appear.
• Reviewer and owner. Name who verified the entry and who must act when it changes.
• Destinations and next check. Link the biographies using the claim and specify a review date or event trigger.

For a hypothetical CPA entry, the record would identify the person, the relevant state board, the actual licence identifier, the status shown by that board, and the verification date. Its approved wording would match the verified status and applicable use requirements. Avoid entering a guessed renewal date simply to complete a column.

Resolve exceptions before publishing a stronger claim

An absent search result is not automatically evidence of an invalid credential. Investigate spelling, jurisdiction, source coverage, and the underlying record. Mark the verification as unresolved while the reviewer obtains the necessary evidence.

Keep expired certification, changed membership, restricted authorization, and an unresolved lookup distinct. Do not silently rewrite all of them as “inactive.” Where a change affects the claim, obtain the appropriate review and update the wording promptly.

A professional record supports the status it records. It does not by itself establish experience in a particular industry, responsibility for a project, current availability, or permission to publish client information. Connect those claims to their own evidence.

9.4 Connect Expert Profiles With Practice Pages, Publications, Research, and Professional Records

Make the biography a useful route between the professional’s current work and the material that supports it. Link the person from relevant practice pages, and link the biography back to the practices in which the person has a meaningful role. Select connections that help a reader evaluate the actual offering.

Give different links different purposes

A practice link explains the service. A publication shows a contribution. A professional record supports a credential or status. An external profile helps establish identity. Describe those relationships accurately rather than treating every link as interchangeable evidence of expertise.

For a consultant, a methodology article may demonstrate a way of analyzing a problem. For an accountant, an authored reporting guide may explain the professional’s approach to a recurring issue. For a lawyer, an article can identify the jurisdiction and legal question examined. None automatically proves a separate claim about completed client work.

Select a manageable set of relevant contributions and give each a descriptive title, date, and role. A list of unexplained logos or publication names makes the reader reconstruct the connection. Where several professionals contributed, preserving their individual roles.

Make authorship and review truthful

Identify the actual author, co-author, substantive reviewer, interviewer, or editor as appropriate. A professional who checks technical accuracy may be a reviewer without being the original author. General editorial approval does not by itself justify assigning authorship.

Google’s guidance encourages accurate authorship information and links from bylines to author background where readers would expect them. It also identifies fabricated creator profiles, including false names or credentials used to simulate human expertise, as deceptive. Build profiles around real contributors and their actual work. 

For published articles, connect the visible author name to the right biography. Google’s Article guidance recommends an author URL that uniquely identifies the person and says that authors presented on the page should also be represented in its markup. This supports accurate author identification in Google; it does not establish a guaranteed GEO benefit.

A firm service page may appropriately speak for the organization. Do not invent an individual author merely to add a name. If expert review is useful to the reader, identify the review accurately and record its scope and date.

Give the technical owner a verified identity to represent

Use one principal owned profile for each professional where that fits the site. Keep the person’s name, role, affiliation, relevant facts, and links understandable in the visible page. A team directory can then provide a clear path to the individual biography.

Google’s ProfilePage guidance includes employee pages on company websites among valid examples and requires the page to focus on a single person or organization affiliated with the site. It supports links to the subject’s other profiles or home pages. The technical owner should assess the applicable markup; a team directory is not automatically an individual profile. 

Identity links should identify the same person. A page about a different professional with a similar name, a practice offering, or an article merely mentioning the person serves a different purpose. Chapter 10 covers technical implementation and access checks.

Keep this work focused on useful public connections. Assigning every person to every practice, adding unrelated publication links, or multiplying near-identical biographies would make the account less informative. The goal is to let readers follow the actual relationship between the person, the service, and the evidence.

9.5 Align Relevant Personal Websites, LinkedIn Profiles, and External Biographies

Compare the firm’s approved biography with the external descriptions a client is likely to encounter. Start with the professional’s LinkedIn profile, any relevant personal website, professional-association records, and frequently used speaker or author biographies. Prioritize consequential differences in current affiliation, role, credentials, and service scope.

Agree on facts while preserving different voices

The wording can vary by audience and length. A conference biography may emphasize a research topic while LinkedIn summarizes a career. The accounts should agree on material facts and make chronology clear.

A professional may hold more than one genuine current role. Describe those relationships accurately. Membership in a consulting network, an independent practice, and a teaching appointment need not be collapsed into a single exclusive affiliation.

Coordinate person-controlled updates with the professional. Provide the approved factual corrections and relevant links, and have the owner implement or approve them. For a publisher or association, submit a supported request through its process and track the response. Completion of an owned edit and submission of an external request are different events.

Check the relevant LinkedIn fields and public view

Review the headline, current position, Experience section, About text, credentials, and any other-language profiles for contradictions. LinkedIn says the introduction normally draws the current position and company from Experience, allows a primary position to be selected when several are current, and notes that secondary-language profiles may require separate edits. Updating one field is not a complete review. 

The professional should choose which information is public. LinkedIn explains that its public profile is simplified, that not all sections can be displayed publicly, and that some contexts show a more limited preview. A signed-in view therefore does not establish what an unauthenticated reader can see. Check the relevant public presentation within the person’s chosen settings.

Do not infer that information eligible for public display has been indexed or used by an assistant. Retain an accessible owned biography for the facts the firm is authorized to publish. Respect the professional’s publication preferences rather than treating every personal field as a marketing asset.

Correct current claims without rewriting history

A dated conference page may accurately show where someone worked when the event occurred. Its current relevance differs from an active association profile that still describes the person as employed by a former firm. Check the purpose and date before requesting a change.

Where a historical biography is being reused for a new event, supply the current approved version. Where an old page could confuse readers, ask for appropriate context. Record which destinations have changed and which still await an outside response.

9.6 Update Representation When People Join, Leave, Change Roles, or Move Between Firms 

Make profile maintenance part of the process for changes in people’s responsibilities and relationships. Name an owner who receives the relevant notice, coordinates factual review, and tracks the affected destinations. A marketing reminder alone is insufficient if marketing does not learn that the underlying fact changed.

When someone joins or changes role

Before publishing a new current affiliation, confirm its effective date, exact relationship, approved title, and scope of work. Verify relevant credentials and separate earlier experience from current-firm work. Agree on the public account with the professional and the responsible practice leader.

Connect the profile to the practices and contributions it genuinely supports. If a person changes responsibilities, reconsider those links as well as the job title. A promotion should not automatically convert every earlier team contribution into leadership experience.

For changes in professional status, obtain the appropriate review of the wording and any related service claims. Update the affected public descriptions when required; do not wait for a general site refresh. Record what changed and when the new statement became effective.

When someone leaves

Confirm the effective date and the approved public treatment. Correct active team listings, practice contacts, and current-affiliation statements. Remove unsupported implications that the person remains available through the firm.

Choose the former profile’s disposition according to its continuing purpose and the firm’s publishing rules. An accurately dated historical biography may remain useful; other pages may need removal or a relevant replacement. Give the web owner an explicit decision and preserve an appropriate inquiry route.

Preserve accurate, permitted authorship and project attribution. A departed professional’s article should not acquire a replacement author’s name merely because another person now leads the practice. Where ongoing review is needed, identify the new review contribution separately.

Inspect reused speaker biographies, downloadable team sheets, practice-page excerpts, author boxes, and external listings. Correct the owned destinations and coordinate outside updates. The professional’s departure does not make every historical mention false.

Use a profile maintenance checklist

Apply this checklist at a material change and during the scheduled review. Record the owner and completion date for each applicable check.

• Identity and relationship: Name, current affiliation, role, effective date, and type of relationship match the approved record.
• Responsibilities and experience: Current services are accurate; previous employers and individual contributions remain properly attributed.
• Credentials: Relevant statuses and designations have been checked, with unresolved items assigned to a reviewer.
• Owned destinations: Biography, team directory, practice links, author boxes, downloads, and contact routes have been inspected and updated where needed.
• External destinations: Person-controlled changes are coordinated; third-party requests and responses are recorded separately.
• Historical material: Retained biographies, publications, and project credits remain accurate, permitted, and appropriately dated.
• Published version: The visible page and relevant links match the approved change; technical checks are assigned where required.
• Follow-up: The next review trigger, maintenance owner, and relevant monitoring cases are recorded.

After a consequential change, use the relevant cases from Chapter 6 to observe whether assistants describe the person and affiliation accurately. A correctly published profile and a corrected AI answer are separate outcomes. Preserve the observed answer, date, and sources before deciding whether more work is needed.

Practical Output: Complete the Profile, Credential Register, and Maintenance Checklist

Choose the professionals who support the firm’s priority practices. For each, complete the profile template from Section 9.2 and retain the internal evidence and permissions behind its material claims.

Create credential-register entries for the relevant qualifications and authorizations using Section 9.3. Use actual source terminology, identify unresolved questions, and assign the reviewer who can settle them. Do not fill gaps with assumptions.

Apply Section 9.6’s checklist to the current owned and external descriptions. Name the ongoing owner, record the relevant destinations, and establish how that owner will learn about changes in role, affiliation, credentials, or publication permission.

Finally, ask a colleague to use only the proposed public material to explain who the professional is now, what they do, what they personally contributed to earlier work, and what supports the important claims. Resolve any ambiguity before publication. The resulting profile should make expertise understandable while preserving the boundaries of the evidence.