26-Page Pennsylvania Law Firm WordPress Build in 22 Days — White-Label Delivery for a US Marketing Agency

The Craft of a Build

A 26-page Pennsylvania law firm Website Build to a paired Figma design file — ten Elementor templates on Kinsta covering personal injury and workers’ compensation practice areas, from fourteen individual practice-area pages to a dual-practice-area lander structure. The 78-item launch checklist and two QA backlogs were not afterthoughts: they ran in parallel with the content-fix tail that absorbed the agency’s attorney-credential reconciliation before sign-off.

Snapshot

The Brief

A US marketing agency retained by Lerner, Steinberg & Associates — a Pennsylvania personal-injury and workers’-compensation firm serving clients throughout the state — handed us a Figma design file, a Google Sheets workbook with a full URL map, a templates catalogue, a launch checklist, and pre-populated issues backlogs. The build sat on their Kinsta environment; the page builder was Elementor with ACF for structured content; contact forms ran through Gravity Forms. The workbook’s Template tab carried a LEGAL-section library: Practice Area Lander, Individ. Practice Area Page, Lawyer Profile Page, About Us, Blog Lander, Contact Us, and supporting policy pages.

The ask: build all 26 pages against the agency’s legal template library — mapping each individual practice-area URL to its assigned template from the sitemap row — and work down the SEO backlog and the long fix-and-feedback tail until the agency accepted the site. Throughout, stay out of the end-client-facing loop; surface ambiguity back to the agency; do not improvise practice-area descriptions, attorney credentials, or navigational hierarchy.

The source data the agency provided carried content inconsistencies — conflicting years-of-experience figures for the same attorneys, mismatched Education section formatting, and near-identical entries across the case-results section — that the build team could surface but could not author, because practice-area copy and attorney credentials were outside the scope of the development engagement.

How We Did It

1. Ten templates, 26 pages, one build pipeline. Lerner, Steinberg & Associates’ pages spread across the agency’s legal template library: Homepage (1), Practice Area Lander (2 — Personal Injury and Workers’ Compensation), Individ. Practice Area Page (14 — the heaviest template, covering car accidents, truck accidents, motorcycle accidents, slip and fall, dog bite, medical malpractice, wrongful death, premises liability, pedestrian accidents, bicycle accidents, construction accidents, repetitive stress injuries, occupational diseases, and denied claims), Lawyer Profile Page (1), About Us (1), Blog Lander (1), Contact Us (1), Default Template (3 — testimonials, case results, and a blog post), plus Privacy Policy and Terms of Conditions. We built each page on its assigned template from the sitemap row. No page was hand-rolled outside the template system.

2. Spec followed line-for-line, within the hours we scoped. We scoped the per-row hours ourselves and held to them rather than re-estimating individual pages mid-build, because that scoped sitemap was the contractual commitment between the agency and its client — reopening pricing per page would have undermined the fixed-hours structure. Where a row carried 12 hours for the Homepage and 4 for a standard individual practice-area page, that was our budget for the row, and the aggregate came in at the agreed 78 hours for the project.

The principle behind this is simple: on a build with a scoped sitemap, that scope is the contract. A dev team’s job is to deliver inside the row-level budgets, not to re-open the pricing conversation page by page.

3. Fix-and-feedback tail until sign-off. After the initial build, the agency opened rounds of reviewer feedback through individual tickets — 12 content and design fix issues plus 32 QA tracking entries. Each round covered a mix of content accuracy (attorney education-section consistency, years-of-experience alignment, FAQ and results-section content), layout and spacing adjustments, and page-level design refinements. The 43-item SEO backlog was worked down in parallel. All tracked items were resolved through the tail before the agency signed off.

4. Two parallel QA loops, closed before launch. Issues were tracked in two agency-side backlog tabs — the SEO Issues Backlog (43 rows with descriptions, 29 Completed) and the CX Issues Backlog (2 rows with descriptions, 1 Completed). The SEO backlog’s items covered meta-title accuracy, H1 alignment, and content consistency across the 14 individual practice-area pages. The 78-item launch checklist — Design, Functionality, Content, SEO, Responsive, and DNS categories — closed behind both backlogs.

When the agency’s QA flagged three conflicting years-of-experience figures and two inconsistently formatted Education sections, the build team could surface each one but could not author the corrections — that constraint defined the tail. Absorbing those tickets through the fix-and-feedback loop, round by round, was what the 22-day build actually required.

Results

Where this settled: the agency’s 26-URL build shipped across 10 templates on the Kinsta environment, inside the 78-hour quoted budget. Two QA backlogs were worked down to agency-acceptance levels and the launch checklist closed before cutover.

Operational Integrity at handoff

Pre-handoff QA ran Site Checker across all 26 URLs — on this build, with content loaded through ACF fields into Elementor templates, the plugin initially reported missing H1s and empty content on every template page. We rebuilt the content-check method to use full-page rendering before the pass closed clean. Pre-handoff QA ran through Site Checker — see how we run QA for the categories and the rule that nothing ships with an open fail. Once handed over, the agency ran its own QA, and we worked each finding it raised to sign-off.

Process

Phases overlap — the fix-and-feedback tail began before every build-phase QA item had closed, which is why the calendar spans more than the sum of individual phases.

Team

Delivery team

• Nikita Tumasevic — build review and QA support
• Pavel Sazhin — QA iterations and fixes
• Anna Polunina — implementation support and QA
• Timur Arbaev — developer support on late-phase customisation and content corrections
• Lyudmila Travkina — lead developer across build and feedback phases
• Anton Hersun, xaverPRO — project lead (estimation, agency-side communication, sign-off)

Agency-side project management and client-facing communication remained with the partner agency throughout. The law firm only ever heard from the agency — our build team never appeared on a call, in an email, or on the contract.

For agencies commissioning a white-label WordPress build