What Makes a Reference Work Worth Relying On
The difference between a useful reference platform and a frustrating one lies in the editorial decisions made before publication — and in whether those decisions are maintained over time. This page sets out what Lexicord does, and how that compares to the alternatives.
← Back to HomeSix Reasons Practitioners Rely on Lexicord
Each of these advantages flows directly from how the platform is built — from the editorial process to the subscription structure.
Editorial Board Oversight
Every entry is reviewed and approved by members of the editorial board — practitioners and academics with direct expertise in the subject area. No entry reaches the platform without this review step.
Primary-Source Citations
Each definition is accompanied by the primary authority that supports it — case report, ordinance, or standard treatise. Readers are not asked to take definitions on faith; the supporting authority is visible.
Quarterly Update Cycle
The glossary is updated on a quarterly schedule with a published bulletin. Readers know what has changed, when, and why. Entries that have been superseded are retired rather than silently corrected.
Meaningful Cross-References
Related headwords are linked within the glossary. Cross-references are editorial decisions, not automated suggestions — they reflect genuine conceptual relationships between doctrines and subject areas.
Hong Kong Common-Law Focus
The platform is specifically oriented towards practitioners operating within or alongside Hong Kong law. Where English law is referenced, this is made clear; the glossary does not treat all common-law jurisdictions as interchangeable.
Customisation for Organisations
Through the editorial customisation engagement, organisations can extend the reference work with their own internal terminology — headwords, definitions, and cross-references written to the same editorial standard as the main glossary.
A Board of Practitioners, Not a Content Team
The Lexicord editorial board includes barristers, solicitors, and academic researchers who work with the terminology they define. This is the foundation of the glossary's reliability: entries are written by people who understand the practical consequences of a definition that is slightly off.
Board members with expertise in a given area take lead responsibility for those entries. General practitioners or content writers — however diligent — are not the same as specialists who have argued the relevant principles in proceedings or researched them at doctoral level.
- Editorial board includes active practitioners in each subject area
- Academic advisers with specialist research backgrounds
- Lead reviewer assigned by subject area for each entry
- Dual-review requirement before any entry is published
- Editorial notes retained where board members disagree on formulation
A Reference Platform Built for Reading, Not Searching
The platform is designed around the way practitioners actually use reference materials — not around maximising session time or driving clicks to advertising. Typography choices prioritise legibility; cross-references are presented in context; the citation tooling enables readers to note and export references directly.
The institutional version includes team-level citation tooling, enabling teams to maintain shared notes and references linked to glossary entries — a function that reduces duplication of research effort across departments.
- Typography optimised for sustained professional reading
- In-context cross-references rather than sidebar suggestions
- Citation export tooling included in institutional and individual plans
- Team-level shared notes for institutional subscribers
- No advertising or sponsored placement within the platform
Responsive to Subscriber Input
Subscribers are invited to suggest new entries and to flag issues with existing ones. The editorial board reviews all suggestions quarterly. This is not a mechanism for democratising content — the board retains editorial control — but it does mean that the glossary responds to the actual reference needs of its readers rather than following a predetermined editorial plan alone.
- Subscriber entry suggestions reviewed each quarter
- Responses provided to all submissions received
- Issue reports acknowledged and investigated within the editorial cycle
- Institutional subscribers may request priority review of their domain areas
Transparent Pricing, Annual Clarity
Subscriptions are priced annually and transparently. The institutional subscription at HKD 6,800 covers a named team for a full year, including all updates and the quarterly bulletin. The individual subscription at HKD 780 provides a single reader with the same access to the glossary content. The editorial customisation engagement at HKD 2,100 is scoped and priced at the outset, with no variable charges during the engagement period.
- Annual pricing with no mid-term fee increases
- All quarterly updates included in the subscription fee
- Customisation engagement fixed at agreed scope and fee
- Renewal terms confirmed before the annual period ends
Lexicord vs Typical Alternatives
A factual comparison of what Lexicord offers against the common alternatives used by practitioners seeking legal reference material.
| Feature | Lexicord | General Online Dictionaries | Broad Legal Databases |
|---|---|---|---|
| Practitioner-reviewed definitions | varies | ||
| Primary-source citations with each entry | |||
| Quarterly published update schedule | ad hoc | ||
| HK-specific common-law orientation | limited | ||
| Subscriber-driven entry suggestions | |||
| Editorial customisation for organisations | |||
| No advertising within the platform | varies | ||
| Transparent annual pricing | free (ad-supported) | tiered/opaque |
Distinctive Features of Lexicord
Doctrinal Uncertainty Acknowledged, Not Hidden
Where a term is genuinely contested — where courts in different jurisdictions have defined it differently, or where academic commentary disagrees with judicial usage — the entry says so. Readers encounter the complexity rather than a false simplicity.
The Editorial Bulletin as a Reference Document
The quarterly bulletin is not merely an announcement. It documents which entries changed, what authority prompted the change, and — where the revision was substantive — why the previous formulation was considered inadequate.
Editorial Handover on Customisation Engagements
When organisations commission an editorial customisation, they receive not only the extended glossary content but a written memo explaining the editorial choices made — so that internal teams can maintain the extended glossary going forward without dependence on Lexicord.
Citation Policy Published and Maintained
The editorial team's citation policy — specifying which report series, ordinance editions, and treatise versions are used — is published on the platform and updated when changes are made. Readers can assess the currency and authority of the sources used.
Recognised Work, Measured in Reasonable Terms
2019
Platform founded in Central, Hong Kong
600+
Headwords currently in the glossary
24
Quarterly bulletins published to date
8
Editorial board members across practice areas
Recommended by the HK Law Society Knowledge Management Committee
Cited in committee guidance on internal knowledge management tools for legal practices, March 2024.
Adopted by Two HK Law Faculty Departments as Reference Resource
Institutional subscriptions held by law faculty departments at two Hong Kong universities, in use since 2022.
Member, Hong Kong Legal Information Institute Advisory Group
Participating in ongoing discussions on legal reference standards and open-access citation conventions in the region.
Consistently Renewed Institutional Subscriber Base
Over 90% of institutional subscribers have renewed at the end of their annual subscription period since the platform launched.
The Reference Work Your Practice Can Rely On
Individual subscriptions from HKD 780 per year. Institutional plans from HKD 6,800 for named teams. Customisation engagements available from HKD 2,100.
Request Subscription Information