Canonical source: biz/legal/case-study-consent.md — edit the markdown, re-run npm run sync in workspace-site, rebuild, redeploy. The A4 PDF is the client's copy and has the internal notes stripped.
INTERNAL, strip before rendering for a client -----------------------------
Plain-language draft by Claude, 2026-08-10. Not attorney-reviewed.
WHY THIS EXISTS: four founding deals traded a discounted or waived build fee
for the right to publish a named case study with before/after metrics, and
none of that permission is on file (legal/REGISTER.md). Policy is: no
written rights, no discount — and in three of the four the discount has
already been given. So the ask is overdue, not optional.
HOW TO USE IT: don't send this document to a client. It is the plain-English
record of what we're asking for, and the source of the wording used in the
housekeeping email (email-templates/_shared/terms-and-consent.html item 03).
A client's emailed or WhatsApped "yes that's fine" IS the consent — screenshot
it into clients/<slug>/legal/ and tick REGISTER.md. Only send this page itself
if a client wants the detail, or if the client is an organisation whose
marketing person will want something to file.
✅ THE HPCSA POSITION, verified 2026-08-10 (detail in LEGAL-PLAN.md §6): a
named case study with website performance numbers IS workable. It is not
"canvassing" (that needs direct contact with prospective clients) and not
"touting" (that means offers or guarantees outside professional services).
But Rule 76 applies — a practitioner who engages someone to place a public
statement promoting her practice RETAINS professional responsibility for it.
So the test is: would this be compliant if SHE had published it? Build to
that standard and her registration is safe.
Practical lines: website metrics with source and period = fine. Claims about
her practice, her standing, or clinical results = Rule 75(2)(f) breach.
Never solicit a testimonial from a current client (Rule 76(d)); never publish
patient reviews asserting superiority; disclose that she got a reduced fee;
use her registered title exactly; keep it framed as OUR work product on OUR
domain, not promotional prose about her practice.
🔴 Still untested: no HPCSA ruling exists on a SUPPLIER's case study about a
practitioner. Before the first named publication, send a free written query to
the Professional Board for Psychology — the paper trail is worth more than the
answer. Publish anonymised ("a Cape Town psychology practice") until then;
anonymised, none of these rules is engaged.Permission to show your project as an example of our work. Specifically:
We would use these on our own website, in a written case study, in proposals to other prospective clients, and in social or email posts about our work.
You see it before it goes out. No case study, quote or results claim is published until you have seen the actual thing we intend to publish and said yes to it.
You can change your mind. Tell us at any time and we will take it down and stop using it in new material. Anything already printed or already sent we obviously cannot recall, and search engines may keep a copy for a while — but nothing new goes out, and the page comes down.
Accuracy over flattery. Any number we publish is one we measured and can show you the measurement for. Where a comparison is unflattering to us, we say so or we leave it out; we do not round it in our favour.
This is not an endorsement of us. Saying yes does not mean you recommend us to anyone, and we won't imply that it does. If you would like to recommend us, that is a separate and very welcome thing.
It costs you nothing and buys you nothing. Your discount is already yours and does not depend on this permission continuing. If you withdraw it, nothing about your plan, your price or your service changes.
If your profession's rules restrict how your practice may be advertised — as the HPCSA's ethical rules do for healthcare practitioners — those rules come first, and they reach what we publish about you, not only what you publish yourself. A practitioner stays professionally responsible for a public statement she has permitted someone else to make about her practice, so we treat the test as: would this be compliant if you had published it yourself?
In practice that means we will publish facts about the website — how fast it loads, how it was built, how many people visit it and how many use the contact form, each with the measurement period stated — and we will not publish anything about your practice's standing or your clinical results, no patient reviews or testimonials, and no comparative or superlative claims. We will also say plainly that you received a reduced fee, use your registered title exactly as registered, and take anything down promptly if you ask.
We would rather publish less than put your registration at risk. If you would prefer it, we are glad to publish the case study without naming you at all — "a Cape Town psychology practice" carries almost the same weight for us and engages none of these rules.
An email or WhatsApp message saying you are happy with the above is enough. No signature is needed. We keep a copy of your reply on file, and you are welcome to ask us for it at any time.
Leachie · Daniel Slater t/a Leachie, Cape Town · accounts@leachie.com · +27 76 456 2179
Version 1.0 · 10 August 2026