This question is grounded in a theme repeated across multiple legal-assistant interview-prep sources, one of which uses this exact type of naming-inconsistency example: document accuracy has real consequences, so employers want to see a concrete proofreading process, not just a general claim of being detail-oriented.
Describe a specific document and the error you found. Explain your process: comparing versions, checking against originals, reading aloud, using spell-check but not relying on it, and having a second set of eyes when possible.
Cross-check the document against its source materials or prior correspondence line by line rather than skimming it, paying particular attention to names, dates, case or reference numbers, and monetary figures, since these are the most common places small errors hide. If the document went through multiple rounds of edits, compare versions to make sure earlier and later language didn't get mixed together. Read critical sections aloud, or even backward, to catch mistakes that spell-check won't flag, like a correctly spelled but wrong name. Use spell-check as a first pass only, not a substitute for a careful read. Where possible, have a second person review before the document is filed or sent. If you find a discrepancy, flag it to the attorney rather than silently correcting it yourself, especially if it's a substantive change and not just a typo.
Some might say, 'Mabait naman ako at meticulous talaga, so wala akong na-miss na error.' Never just claim being meticulous; show your method. Use a specific example like cross-referencing with source documents or using a checklist.
Situation
While formatting a contract for an attorney at my previous firm, I noticed the company name was written two different ways in the same document.
Task
My job was to proofread the document for formatting, spelling, and consistency errors before the attorney reviewed and sent it out.
Action
I had a checklist that included verifying party names, dates, and signature blocks against the source file. I noticed one section referred to the client as 'ABC Corporation' while another section used 'ABC Corp,' and I flagged the inconsistency to the attorney before it went out. I also caught a date mismatch, where one paragraph referenced a meeting on one date and another paragraph referenced a different date for what should have been the same meeting, and brought that to the attorney's attention as well.
Result
The attorney corrected both issues before the document was finalized, avoiding confusion that could have complicated the document later.
A systematic proofreading checklist catches errors that a casual read misses.
Write your own answer, then get instant AI feedback graded against:
Get AI feedback on your answer — free.
3 free AI-graded answers + 1 free mock interview, no card needed.
Sign Up FreeAlready have an account? Log in
Sign in to join the conversation.
No answers shared yet — be the first to show how you'd approach this.