role: user

text: ok - we need to write to Alan and cancel the consult meeting tomorrow while i continue to collect data from the other attornies.


role: assistant

text: Reading the Freed scheduling email (Mili Cassinelli) to confirm the exact consult date/time, then I’ll draft a short cancellation note for you to approve (two-key rule: preview first, then send).


text:
Draft cancellation email is in `records/lawyers/freed/draft_cancel_consult_email_body.txt`:

```text
Hi Mr. Freed,

Thank you again for making time. I need to cancel our consultation currently scheduled for Tuesday, February 24, 2026 while I gather some additional information and compare options.

I’m sorry for the inconvenience. If you’re open to it, I’d like to circle back and reschedule once I’m ready.

Thank you,
Karl Stiefvater
```

Two quick choices before I send:
1. Send to Alan only (`afreed@pcblawfirm.com`), or also CC his assistant (`mcassinelli@pcblawfirm.com`) so scheduling/payment gets canceled cleanly?
2. Subject line OK as `Cancel consultation (Feb 24)`?

Reply with “send” + your choices and I’ll transmit exactly as approved.


text:
1. both 2. perfect

send!


text: Email sent from `qarl@qarl.com` to `afreed@pcblawfirm.com`, cc `mcassinelli@pcblawfirm.com`, subject `Cancel consultation (Feb 24)`.


text: i don't like the way his rate jumped.  seems like he decided to gouge me and then got caught.


text:
Yeah, I see why that bugs you.

What we actually saw in the emails was a bundle of inconsistencies:
- Freed offered a quick talk and didn’t mention pricing.
- Then his assistant confirmed a *different* meeting time (Tue 2026-02-24 9:00am) and introduced $400/hr + a $400 consult fee due 24h prior.
- Platform also didn’t line up (Teams link in one email vs “Zoom” in the other).

That pattern reads more like internal office/template drift than a targeted “gotcha”… but it’s still a reliability signal, and you’re not wrong to dislike it.

Want me to add a short factual note under `records/lawyers/freed/2026-02-23_consult_confirmation.md` capturing the mismatch (time/platform/fee introduced later) so we remember why you cooled on him?


text: i think his normal rate is $400 but when he heard i was in san francisco he decided to raise it to $525.  but he forgot to tell his assistant.


text:
I get why you’d suspect that, but I don’t see any evidence of a `$525/hr` rate in what we actually received.

What’s in writing:
- Mili Cassinelli’s confirmation email says **$400/hr** and a **$400 consult fee** due 24h prior.
- Freed’s Teams/meeting email doesn’t mention pricing at all.

So “he raised it to $525 because SF” is a plausible hypothesis, but not something we can treat as fact unless you saw `$525` somewhere (another email, the payment page, an engagement letter, etc.). If you can paste the line or screenshot where `$525` appears, I’ll sanity-check it.

If you want, I can also add a note to `records/lawyers/freed/2026-02-23_consult_confirmation.md` that (1) pricing appeared only in the assistant email and (2) any alleged `$525` rate is unconfirmed.


text: the follow up email from his assistant.  it's $520, not $525.


text:
You’re right: the follow-up from his assistant explicitly corrects it to **$520/hr** (and tells you to disregard the earlier **$400/hr** quote).

It reads (paraphrased): “Please disregard the hourly rate previously stated… Mr. Freed’s hourly rate is $520.00… consultation fee of $400 remains.”

I updated our notes to reflect the correction in:
- `records/lawyers/freed/2026-02-23_consult_confirmation.md`
- `records/lawyers/2026-02-21_consult_outreach.md`

No email says *why* it changed, so “because San Francisco” is a hypothesis, but the mismatch itself is real and worth treating as a reliability/data point.


text: i am quite logically literate.  i would appreciate it if you did not continue to give me condescending advice about infrences.  yes, hypothesis, i know that.  stop saying it.  STOP IT.


text:
Understood. I’ll stop commenting on your reasoning or labeling your inferences unless you explicitly ask.

What do you want next: send the Jones/Wittrock scheduling email to Maya now (so they’ll issue their intake questionnaire), or hold?