role: user

text: ok - let's switch back to lawyers


role: assistant

text: Switching gears to lawyers. I’m going to pull up our current lawyer docs (facts sheet, outreach list, call prep) so we’re working from the same state, then we can decide the next concrete action (new outreach, follow-up, or call prep).


text: I’m going to focus us on the most immediate lawyer task: getting you fully prepped for the Alan Freed call (and fixing a couple small inconsistencies in the call prep sheet).


text:
Next lawyer move: prep for the Alan Freed call (`records/lawyers/freed/2026-02-23_call_prep.md`). I also fixed the one inconsistency there (your age is now 56) and committed it.

What do you want next:
1) tighten a 2-minute “answers-only” script for the call (so you can just read it), or
2) draft a short follow-up email to Freed asking for any intake form + confirming you can cover retainer/fees?


text: did you set Lisa's age to 56 for consistency?


text: Checking where Lisa’s age is currently noted, then I’ll make the lawyer docs consistent (where it’s helpful) and commit.


text:
Not everywhere.

- Yes: `records/lawyers/templates/intake_email.md` already had “Lisa Donahue (56)”.
- No (until just now): `records/lawyers/freed/facts_sheet.md` and `records/lawyers/freed/2026-02-23_call_prep.md` did not include her age.

I updated those two to say Lisa is 56 as well, and committed (`3ce7adf`).


text: do you still have the letter to send the lawyer to give information before  our call?


text:
Yes. It’s saved at `records/lawyers/templates/intake_email.md`. Here’s the full text:

```text
Subject: Collaborative divorce — brief background + intake questions ahead of our call

Hi [Attorney Name],

Thank you for making time to speak. I understand this initial call is to gather information and determine next steps (not a full consultation yet). To make it efficient, here’s a brief, high-level background and a few questions.

Context
- I’m seeking a Missouri attorney trained in collaborative divorce. My spouse and I are aiming to keep this steady and out of litigation if at all possible, and we’re coordinating outreach to avoid conflicts.
- Parties: Karl Stiefvater (56) and Lisa Donahue (56) (for conflict checking: zinch@zizzerzinch.com).
- I’m currently in San Francisco, so phone/Zoom works best.

Immediate practical needs (what I’m hoping to structure early)
- Interim cash-flow/support so I’m not cut off while counsel/process is being set up
- Housing in San Francisco (rent is the biggest expense)
- Protect stability for my mom’s assisted living during the transition
- Timing: I’m concerned about things moving too fast and want guidance on how to slow the pace responsibly while staying collaborative.

Financial notes (high-level)
- Employment/income: I’m currently unemployed, have no current income, and don’t have anything lined up in the near term (I’m exploring options).
- I have no personal retirement savings and I’m concerned about retirement runway.
- Trust constraint: the corpus is locked in a trust to which I am not a beneficiary (I can’t access/touch the corpus). The trust limits on the inheritance came as a surprise to us, and we did not plan around access to those funds.

Questions
1) What specific information do you need from me first (intake form/questionnaire, or a short list)?
2) What are your rates (initial call/consult rate if applicable, hourly rates) and typical retainer range and billing cadence?
3) What’s a normal way to handle interim arrangements (shared accounts, bill-paying, avoiding either spouse feeling cut off) while counsel gets aligned?
4) What are the next steps/timeline if we decide to move forward (engagement, disclosures, first joint meeting)?
5) What do you recommend to slow the timeline down appropriately (e.g., a standstill/status-quo agreement while counsel gets aligned and interim arrangements are set)?

If you have an intake form, I’m happy to fill it out in advance.

Thank you,
Karl Stiefvater
+1 (415) 938-7275
qarl@qarl.com
San Francisco (Pacific)
```


text: can we put timing on the top of immediate practical needs, not the bottom?


text: Done. Timing is now the first bullet under “Immediate practical needs” in `records/lawyers/templates/intake_email.md`, and it’s committed (`eb2104e`).


text: where is it positioned in the questions?


text:
It’s **Question 5** (the last question) in `records/lawyers/templates/intake_email.md`:

`5) What do you recommend to slow the timeline down appropriately (e.g., a standstill/status-quo agreement while counsel gets aligned and interim arrangements are set)?`


text: is it above or below money?  i was slowdown to be above money


text: Reordering the intake email questions so the “slow the timeline down” question comes before the rates/retainer (money) question, then I’ll commit.


text:
It was **below** money; I moved it **above**.

In `records/lawyers/templates/intake_email.md`, “slow the timeline down” is now **Question 2**, and rates/retainer (money) is **Question 5** (commit `3a11f7f`).


text: can you check for flow?  does the ordering of everything make sense?


text:
Flow looks good.

- Overall order is coherent: `Context` → `Immediate practical needs` (timing first) → `Financial notes` → `Questions` (intake → timing/standstill → interim logistics → process/timeline → rates) → close.
- Timing shows up twice (top need + Q2). That reads intentional, not redundant, and it keeps the “slow down” priority above money.

Only optional micro-tweaks (not required):
- Shorten the timing bullet a bit to reduce repetition.
- Rename the header to “Immediate priorities” if you want “timing” to feel less like a “practical need.”

Want either tweak, or leave it as-is?


text: agreed on the micro-tweaks.  can you show me the entire message again and prepare for email?