17-Page Personal-Injury Law Firm WordPress Build

Client (end user): Big Joe Law — Los Angeles, CA
Engagement: White-label development for a US marketing agency
Delivered: May – July 2025 · 44 days · 78 hours across homepage build, remaining pages, and QA reconciliation

The Craft of a Build

17 pages across 9 templates, built to a Figma prototype that included type-out hero animation and a verdicts carousel — the homepage shipped first against a 15-hour budget while practice-area content was still being drafted, and the remaining 16 interior pages absorbed late-arriving copy without breaking the design grid or the per-row hour estimates.

This case study is a record of that adaptive build — a Los Angeles personal-injury law firm, delivered for a US marketing agency in the legal segment.

Snapshot

The Brief

A US marketing agency retained by Big Joe Law — a Los Angeles personal-injury firm — handed us a Figma design library, a Google Sheets progress tracker, staging credentials on Kinsta, and a phased brief: build the homepage first, while content for interior pages was being prepared in parallel. The page builder was Elementor; contact forms were wired as part of the build. The agency owned design, content strategy, SEO, and the client relationship. Our scope was to build every page to Figma fidelity, configure the contact forms, implement the blog category filtering, and work down two parallel QA backlogs until the agency accepted the site.

The ask was staged. Phase 1: build the homepage (15 hours) against the Figma prototype, including the type-out hero animation and the verdicts carousel. Phase 2: build the remaining interior pages — about, practice-area lander, 8 individual practice-area pages, results, blog lander and individual blog template, contact, and privacy policy — once the content and design were approved. Because those pages’ copy lived in agency-managed Google Docs outside the workbook, each interior page required cross-referencing two sources rather than building from a single spec, adding a content-staging step before template application. Throughout, stay out of the end-client-facing loop; surface ambiguity back to the agency; do not improvise practice-area descriptions, attorney credentials, or results language.

How We Did It

1. Nine templates, 17 pages, one build pipeline — homepage first, then interior pages. Big Joe Law’s pages spread across the agency’s legal template library: Homepage (1), About Us (1), Practice Area Lander (1), Individual Practice Area Page (8 — personal injury, car accidents, truck accidents, motorcycle accidents, bicycle accidents, slip and fall, dog bites, rideshare accidents), Results (1), Blog Lander (1), Individual Blog (1), Contact Us (1), and a Default Template for the privacy policy. The homepage was built first against the Figma prototype; the interior pages followed in a second phase once content was ready. Each page was built on its assigned template from the sitemap row; no page was hand-rolled outside the template system.

2. Spec followed line-for-line — including the per-page Hours Estimated column. The agency’s workbook carried an Hours Estimated value for every row. The homepage received the largest single-row budget (6 hours in the sitemap, 15 hours quoted including QA iteration); the 8 individual practice-area pages received a fixed allocation each. The aggregate came in at the agreed 78 hours for the project.

The principle behind this is simple: on a build with a pre-costed sitemap, the workbook 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. Figma-to-Elementor fidelity on a homepage-first build. The source design was a Figma file with a prototype including type-out text animation, a verdicts carousel, and a custom awards section. We built the homepage template to match the Figma grid, spacing, and interaction spec before any interior-page template was started — so the design language established on the homepage could be inherited by the interior pages without per-page rework. When the interior-page designs arrived, they were built against the same Elementor component library, ensuring visual consistency across the 17-URL surface.

4. Two parallel QA loops, closed before launch. Issues were tracked in two agency-side backlog tabs — the Issues Backlog(SEO) (83 rows, covering meta titles, H1 headers, URL structure, internal links, and responsive behaviour) and the Issues Backlog(CX) (34 rows, covering Figma fidelity, font consistency, image quality, and form functionality). Both backlogs were worked in parallel through the QA reconciliation tail. The 39-item launch checklist — Design, Functionality, Pre-Migration, Post-Migration — closed behind both backlogs.

The Figma prototype’s scroll animations could not be reproduced in Elementor without breaking on reverse scroll. We called it explicitly: approximate the intent using Elementor’s native scrolling effects rather than match the prototype frame-for-frame. That decision at the homepage stage meant the interior-page build did not stall waiting on an animation solution Elementor could not reliably deliver.

Results

The outcome, restated plainly: the agency’s 17-URL legal build shipped across 9 templates on the Kinsta environment, inside the 78-hour quoted budget. Two QA backlogs (SEO + CX) were worked through to agency-acceptance levels and the launch checklist closed before the domain went live.

Operational Integrity at handoff

Post-launch QA surfaced two fix-loop categories: the contact form’s validation message rendering as red text on the red hero background — invisible, with screen-overflow on submit — and a Russian-language developer comment (// Проверяем, появились ли новые элементы поиска) left in the rendered DOM of /car-accidents/, caught by the agency’s content scan and cleared before sign-off (Redmine #969, #937). Pre-handoff QA ran through Site Checker — see our QA discipline for the categories and the fail-zero gate. The agency’s own QA layer — their tools, their process — ran post-handoff and surfaced issues into the shared backlog for our fix loop until they signed off.

Process

Interior-page build began before the homepage QA tail had fully closed, which is why the calendar is 44 days rather than the sum of sequential phases.

Team

Delivery team

• Nikita Tumasevic — lead developer across homepage build, interior-page templates, and Figma reconciliation
• Pavel Sazhin — QA iterations and fixes
• Timur Arbaev — QA iterations and pre-handoff review
• Anna Polunina — developer support on late-phase content updates and backlog corrections
• Lyudmila Travkina — QA pass and pre-handoff review coordination
• 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. Our team was invisible to the end client.

For agencies commissioning a white-label WordPress build