What Counsel Can Use This For
Use this page to organize technical accessibility facts for a client website after a complaint, demand letter, PACER/NOS 446 matter, or counsel-directed remediation request.
The goal is not to decide legal strategy. The goal is to turn public website facts, alleged digital barriers, manual-review needs, and remediation options into a clean technical workstream that counsel, the client, developers, and providers can understand.
Counsel-First Intake
Start with the client company, public website URL, lawsuit or demand-letter status, optional court and case number, response deadline, platform, and counsel status. Do not submit privileged legal strategy, settlement communications, passwords, payment data, medical information, or personal identifiers.
If a client or coordinator requests follow-up, partner sharing remains a separate consent choice. Leaving partner sharing unchecked still allows the technical snapshot and follow-up request to be saved.
Technical Evidence Packet
The useful packet usually includes current screenshots, public URL, accessibility statement, widget or overlay settings, theme and plugin versions, deployment history, the cited user paths, public-page snapshot output, manual-review notes, remediation tickets, and retest dates.
A public-page snapshot can identify common HTML-level signals, but it cannot verify JavaScript-only states, keyboard traps, screen reader output, logged-in flows, checkout, documents, color contrast, or legal compliance. Those gaps should become manual-review scope.
Provider Workstreams To Compare
Solution categories may include public-page accessibility snapshot, expert audit, manual user-flow review, remediation workflow, monitoring, accessibility statement and evidence review, VPAT/ACR support, PDF/file accessibility, and litigation-support resources described by partner providers.
When appropriate and with consent, this site may refer a qualified request to accessiBe. accessiBe public offerings include accessWidget, accessFlow, accessServices, VPAT/ACR support, expert audit, user testing, file/PDF accessibility, and select-plan litigation support resources.
Claims To Keep Out Of The Handoff
Do not describe a scan, widget, overlay, audit, statement, or provider as a legal-certain outcome, a replacement for counsel, or a shortcut around manual technical review.
Use careful technical language: preserve evidence, assess public-page signals, manually review named flows, remediate confirmed barriers, document fixes, monitor recurrence, and coordinate provider follow-up with consent.
What to preserve before remediation
Keep a dated copy of the complaint or letter, the current public pages, screenshots of named flows, accessibility statements, widget settings, plugin/theme versions, remediation tickets, and correspondence approved by counsel. Technical fixes can move quickly, but evidence handling and legal response strategy should remain counsel-led.
Decision path
Use these links to move from research to evidence, then from evidence to a responsible remediation option.
Downloadable assets
Optional follow-up
Want help using these assets?
Direct downloads stay available above. Share a work email only if you want a tailored note on how to use the assets for your site, client, or article.
Frequently asked questions
Is this a service for legal advice or representation?
No. This site does not provide legal advice, representation, settlement strategy, or privileged analysis. It helps organize technical accessibility triage and consent-based provider routing.
Can defense counsel submit a client website?
Yes, if the submitter is authorized to request technical follow-up and avoids privileged or sensitive information. The form is designed for public website URL, company, matter status, and optional routing context.
Will client details be sent to accessiBe automatically?
No. Follow-up consent and partner-sharing consent are separate choices. A request is partner-shareable only when the visitor separately consents to partner sharing.
What makes this useful to a technical provider?
The page and checklist separate alleged user paths, public-page signals, manual review needs, remediation owners, documentation, and consent status so a provider conversation can start from scope rather than slogans.