.facts — 8 layout options

The "LaW Facts / Did You Know?" section, rebuilt. Every option here is a different answer to one question: what is this section actually for?

What the section does today, and why it is the weakest block on the page:
  1. 948px — most of a screen — for one sentence. It is the tallest section on the homepage and carries the least information per pixel.
  2. The firm's strongest proof is hidden in a slider. A unanimous Supreme Court of Canada decision is one of N rotating panels; most visitors see one and never learn the rest exist.
  3. "Did you know?" frames it as trivia. Winning at the SCC is not a fun fact — it is the single most persuasive thing this firm can say, and the framing files it under entertainment.
  4. Nothing is clickable. No route to the case, to results, or to the lawyers involved.
  5. It names one lawyer. The client's own words are "we are teams of legal professionals, not lawyers supporting clients" — a hero-lawyer panel works against the idea the site is supposed to carry.
  6. Credibility is scattered. 160 years combined, six offices, 4.9★ from 173 reviews, and this SCC win are the four things that make the firm credible — and they currently live in four unrelated places, or nowhere.
The direction doc puts this zone as "credibility — reviews, 160 years, results." So the strongest options below stop treating it as a fact slider and start treating it as the proof layer.
⚠ Data warning — read before showing anyone. The Supreme Court fact (Cowper-Smith v. Morgan, 2017 SCC 61) is real and already published on the live site. Everything else is placeholder: the case notes in K4, the review quotes in K8, and the team names in K5 are written by me to demonstrate layout. Invented case outcomes and invented client reviews are a legal and ethical problem for a law firm, not just a content gap — every one of them must be replaced with real, client-cleared material before this goes near Darren, and the review numbers must be confirmed against the actual Google profile.
K1Baseline — fact slider + photo 948px The current section, for reference.
LaW Facts

DID YOU KNOW?

In 2017, Darren Williams successfully argued in front of the Supreme Court of Canada resulting in an unanimous decision in his client's favor. (Cowper-Smith v. Morgan, 2017 SCC 61.)

Photo — Darren at the SCC
(live site asset)
K2Proof band — four numbers ~300px The four credibility claims collected into one dark band of hexagon cells. Everything visible at once, nothing hidden in a rotation, a third of the height. The most information-dense answer and the least like the old site.
Why clients choose us

The record behind the advice

160 yrsCombined experience across the team
4.9★From 173 Google reviews
1Unanimous win at the Supreme Court of Canada
6Offices serving Vancouver Island
K3Lead fact + proof rail ~520px Keeps the SCC story as a proper statement — not trivia, not a slider — with the other three claims stacked beside it. Middle path: the fact still leads, but it stops costing a full screen and the rest of the proof stops hiding.
Argued and won

In 2017 we argued before the Supreme Court of Canada — and won unanimously.

The country's highest court decided in our client's favour, nine judges to nothing. The same team that took that case is the team that answers the phone here.

Cowper-Smith v. Morgan, 2017 SCC 61
Read the Case
160 yearscombined experience
4.9 ★from 173 Google reviews
6 officesacross Vancouver Island
K4Case notes — results, not trivia ~560px Three matters as Situation → What we did → Outcome, no client names. Converts "did you know" into evidence a worried visitor can measure their own problem against. Strongest persuasion of the set — and the one that needs real, cleared content before it can exist.
Results

What this looks like in practice

Every matter is different and past results never guarantee a future one — but this is the kind of work the teams here do week to week.

Estate Disputes

An estate divided unequally between siblings

Situation
A will left one child a fraction of what the others received, after decades of unpaid work on the family property.
What we did
Brought a wills-variation claim and assembled the record of contribution over twenty years.
Outcome
The estate was redistributed on consent before trial.
Personal Injury

A cyclist struck at an intersection

Situation
Liability was denied outright and the initial offer did not cover time off work.
What we did
Reconstructed the collision with an engineer and documented the loss of earning capacity.
Outcome
Settled for a multiple of the first offer.
Marine Law

A charter that ended on the rocks

Situation
Owner and operator each pointed at the other, and the policy excluded both readings.
What we did
Established the chain of responsibility under the charter agreement.
Outcome
Coverage confirmed and the repair funded.
See More Results
K5Team-first — "it took a team" ~560px The same SCC win, retold as the team that won it rather than the lawyer who argued it. This is the direction doc's core idea made literal — "we are teams of legal professionals, not lawyers supporting clients" — in the one place on the page where the old site says the opposite.
Why a league

It took a team to win at the Supreme Court of Canada.

One lawyer stood up to argue it. Behind that argument were the people who built the record, ran the research, and kept the client informed for four years. That is how every file here is handled — a group, with a named lead.

Meet Your Team
The team on that file
Lead
Named leadCounsel
Photo
Team memberAssociate
Photo
Team memberParalegal
Photo
Team memberResearch
Photo
Team memberClient care
K6Split with photo, halved and de-slidered ~470px The most conservative move: keeps the shape the client already approved — dark panel beside a photograph — but halves the height and replaces the rotation with three facts always visible. Safest to get past a "why did you change it?" conversation.
LaW Facts

In 2017 we argued before the Supreme Court of Canada and won unanimously — Cowper-Smith v. Morgan, 2017 SCC 61.

160 years of combined experience sit behind every file the teams here take on.

4.9 out of 5 across 173 Google reviews, from clients on Vancouver Island.

Photo — courtroom / firm
(November shoot; crop 620×470)
K7Quiet statement + stat rule ~430px One sentence at display size on off-white, then the numbers on a thin rule beneath. No photo, no panel, no colour block — the section becomes typography and a horizontal rule. The most "modern, clean, sharp" reading of the brief, and it costs almost nothing to build.
We argued in front of the Supreme Court of Canada — and won, unanimously.
Cowper-Smith v. Morgan, 2017 SCC 61
160years combined experience
4.9 ★from 173 Google reviews
6offices on Vancouver Island
1985serving the Island since
K8Reviews-led — proof from clients ~480px Leads with the 4.9★ and two client quotes, with the firm's own claims reduced to a strip underneath. Credibility spoken by clients rather than by the firm — usually the more persuasive voice, and it puts the review score somewhere a visitor will actually see it.
4.9 Rated 4.9 out of 5★★★★★173 Google reviews · Victoria, BC
Read All Reviews

"Placeholder review copy — a client describing being kept informed through a long file, in their own words, two or three sentences at most."

— Placeholder name, Google review

"Placeholder review copy — a second client, ideally about a different practice area, so the two quotes do not read as the same story twice."

— Placeholder name, Google review
160 years combined experience
SCC unanimous win, 2017
6 offices across Vancouver Island