01 — Context
MP Asistencias Legales is a Bogotá firm that guides individuals and small traders through personal insolvency proceedings, working mainly online. The site speaks to someone already in arrears and fielding collection calls.
The brief was to explain a court process, emotionally and legally loaded, without alarmism or promises, and to lead people to an initial review of their case knowing what gets reviewed and what doesn’t. I designed the UX/UI and built the site in WordPress, on a custom theme.
02 — My role
I ordered the home page journey (problem, eligibility, mechanism, process and first step) and designed the home page, the service pages, the contact page and the review form. I built the theme, the form with its endpoint, which classifies each enquiry, and the event layer, including the WhatsApp links that carry their origin. I set up GA4 and reviewed heatmaps in Clarity. The client supplied the copy and photography.
03 — Diagnosis
A court process read under collection pressure
The risk in the brief cut both ways: sounding alarmist or sounding like a promise. It was a new site, with no previous version to fix, so the question was how to frame it from the start. I assumed people arrive with one specific question, whether they qualify for the process, not with the name of the procedure. My read: if the page starts with the firm or the solution, people can’t tell whether their case fits until after they’ve laid out their debts.
That order would cost the person, who probably writes in afraid of exposing their situation and distrusts anyone promising to wipe out their debts. And it would cost the firm, which would get enquiries from cases that don’t meet the conditions and have to gather, on the first call, the facts that decide whether there’s a case at all.
04 — Decisions
A. Three ways in, depending on how exposed people want to be
- Problem
- Asking for debt details up front is a high barrier for someone who doesn’t yet know whether talking to a lawyer is worth it.
- Decision
- The hero offers three buttons: "Hablar por WhatsApp" as primary, "Solicitar revisión inicial", which leads to the contact page, and "Agendar llamada", which dials the firm’s number.
- Why this one
- I weighed a single button to the form; I chose three ways in because the form makes people type amounts and creditors before the first conversation. The cost: three buttons of similar weight competing with each other, taking up most of the first screen on mobile.
- What I expected
- Each person starting on the channel where they felt least exposed, and nobody leaving for lack of one.
B. WhatsApp everywhere, and every link says where it came from
- Problem
- A WhatsApp conversation leaves no trace in analytics: the firm can’t tell which part of the page started it.
- Decision
- WhatsApp sits in the fixed header, in a floating button and in every closing block. The nine links on the home page open wa.me with a prefilled message that ends in its origin ("Origen: wp-home-hero", "wp-footer"…), and the floating button shrinks to an icon while a primary button is in view.
- Why this one
- I weighed relying on the click event in analytics alone; I chose to tag the origin inside the message as well because the event counts the click but can’t see whether a conversation started. The cost: people see a technical tag in their first message, on a sensitive subject.
- What I expected
- Knowing which blocks start conversations and which are dead weight, even though the conversation happens off-site.
C. Conditions before process
- Problem
- People who don’t meet the conditions find out late, after they’ve told their story.
- Decision
- Right after the hero, the "¿Puedo acceder al proceso de insolvencia?" block lays out the four conditions, numbered, a card that opens an explainer video and a close reading "Si cumples varias condiciones, tu caso merece revisión" before the button. The hero panel brings those conditions forward.
- Why this one
- I weighed an eligibility quiz with an automatic verdict; I chose to present the conditions as reading because only a lawyer can say whether a case qualifies. The cost: giving up the immediacy of an answer to avoid false certainty, with people doing the maths themselves.
- What I expected
- Fewer enquiries from cases that don’t qualify, and the ones that come in knowing why.
D. Saying what the process doesn’t do
- Problem
- In insolvency, the most attractive promise, wiping out debt, is also the one the process doesn’t keep.
- Decision
- The mechanism block says in its second paragraph "Las deudas no se eliminan. Se reorganizan y renegocian…" (debts aren’t erased; they’re restructured and renegotiated), and the process is explained in five one-sentence stages, from the initial review to carrying out the agreement.
- Why this one
- I weighed a tone of instant relief; I chose to say early what the process doesn’t do because people arriving distrust anyone who promises to wipe out their debts. The cost: a less appealing promise at first glance, in exchange for enquiries from people who already know the process is a negotiation with their creditors.
- What I expected
- Enquiries with realistic expectations, and fewer drop-offs when the lawyer explains the scope.
E. A form that asks what decides viability
- Problem
- With only a name and phone number, the lawyer has to gather on the first call the facts that decide whether there’s a case.
- Decision
- The review form asks for ten details, four of them required: name, mobile, amount as a range and number of creditors. Arrears and active proceedings are selectors, the amount allows "Prefiero no indicarlo por ahora" (rather not say for now) and, before the button, a notice says that submitting is not an approval. Submissions go to a custom endpoint that classifies each enquiry.
- Why this one
- I weighed a minimal form followed by a qualification call; I chose to ask for the conditions in the form itself because they are the facts that let the lawyer prioritise. The cost: more fields, though ranges and the option not to state the amount lower the cost of the most sensitive question.
- What I expected
- Enquiries arriving classified and with the conditions already answered, and fewer discovery calls.
05 — System
The result was a home page ordered as a journey: a hero with three ways in and the legal framework (Fig. 0), eligibility (Fig. 2), problem, mechanism and process (Fig. 3), a trust block and a close with WhatsApp and the form. Around it, WhatsApp with the origin in every link and a floating button that steps back for the primary buttons (Fig. 1), a review form with a custom endpoint that classifies each enquiry (Fig. 4), and the insolvency, requirements, seizures, FAQ and blog templates.
The scope ended at delivery and instrumentation, not impact reporting, so this case reports no figures.
06 — What I’d test now
Today the hero splits attention across three buttons: "Agendar llamada" dials the firm’s number directly, and "Solicitar revisión inicial" opens the contact page at the top, several screens above the form (Fig. 0 versus Fig. 4). I’d test two ways in, with the review button going straight to the form.
- Hypothesis
- If the hero keeps two buttons, WhatsApp and "Solicitar revisión inicial" pointing straight at the form, form submissions from the home page rise without WhatsApp conversations dropping.
- Primary metric
- Review form submissions per session landing on the home page, via the contact_form_submit event in GA4.
- Guardrail
- WhatsApp clicks from the hero (whatsapp_click with origin wp-home-hero) per session: if they drop, the variant is discarded.
- Control
- The current three-button hero. 50/50 split until the sample size calculated from the baseline; with a law firm’s traffic, probably several weeks.