How I Work

Scope-setting: how a matter starts

I work by written intake. Calls happen only after a matter is open and a written engagement is in place, and only when written exchange cannot do the work. The intake sequence is the same for every matter, regardless of size.

1. Written inquiry

   Send the facts, the documents you have, and the outcome you are trying to reach to owner@terms.law. Plain prose is fine. The more specific the better.

2. Conflict check

   Before I read your documents in any depth, I run your names and the counterparty names against my open and recent files. If a conflict exists, I tell you in writing and close the inquiry without retaining the documents.

3. Written scope and fee

   If the matter is something I take, I send a written engagement agreement that defines the exact scope of work, the deliverable, the fee structure (flat fee or hourly with a stated cap), the payment terms, and the items expressly excluded from scope. Nothing is implied. Nothing is verbal.

4. Payment and start

   Flat-fee matters are paid in full before drafting starts. Hourly matters take a refundable deposit against the cap. Once payment is recorded and the engagement is countersigned, the file is open and I begin substantive work.

5. Delivery and scope close

   On delivery I send the work product, a short note on what was done, and a written notation that the scope of engagement is satisfied. If follow-on work is requested, it is a new scope, with a new written agreement and a new fee. Scope creep is the failure mode I most actively avoid.

Fees

Every service has a posted flat fee. The price covers what is listed and nothing else. If the actual matter is broader than the standard scope (multiple targets, contested arbitration, multi-round revision, an unusual jurisdictional layer), I quote in writing before any work starts.

I do not take matters on contingency. I do not run retainer arrangements that bill against an open hourly meter without a cap. Each matter turns on its facts and the engagement document controls.

Communication cadence

Email is the canonical channel for both new-matter inquiries and ongoing matters. My response window for substantive matters in the file is one business day; for new inquiries it is two business days. If a matter has a statute-of-limitations or filing-deadline trigger inside that window, say so in the subject line and I prioritize.

Calls are reserved for matters that genuinely cannot be handled in writing. They are scheduled, not impromptu. Most clients I work with never need one. A scheduled written exchange with attached documents produces a record both sides can re-read, forward to a partner or accountant, and rely on later; an unrecorded phone conversation produces neither.

Turnaround on standard deliverables, measured from the moment payment clears and the engagement is countersigned:

• Demand letters: same business day if intake clears before 12:00 Pacific, next business day otherwise.
• Contract review (review only): 24 to 48 hours for documents of standard length.
• Contract review plus revision: 2 to 5 business days depending on length and complexity.
• Pro se filing package: 3 to 5 business days.
• Business formation: 1 to 2 business days plus the state's own processing time.

These are working estimates, not guarantees. Each engagement agreement states the turnaround commitment for that specific matter.

Document handling

Documents come in by encrypted email or by a secure folder that I provision per-matter. The intake form on each service page also routes attachments directly to my working file system. For especially sensitive material (financial statements, source code, regulatory correspondence), I provision an access-restricted folder and remove access on matter close.

I retain the closed-matter file, including drafts, emails, and supporting exhibits, for seven years from the date of matter close. After seven years the file is deleted unless the client has asked me in writing to extend retention or to return the originals. Original documents the client sent me physically are returned on request; digital originals can be re-sent at any time during the retention period.

Future intake will route through /engage/ when that workflow is published. Until then, the canonical intake path is email with attachments to owner@terms.law or the matter-specific intake form on the relevant service page.

Conflict policy

Before I open any file, I run a conflict check against my open and recent matters. The check compares the new client's legal name and any business affiliates against parties, counterparties, and related entities in my existing files. If a direct or positional conflict surfaces, I tell the inquiring party in writing, return any documents that were shared during inquiry, and do not retain copies for my own use.

I do not run "screening" or "ethical wall" arrangements; the practice is small enough that direct conflict-clearing is the only honest approach. If the conflict is one a client can knowingly waive under California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7, I describe the conflict in plain English and ask for written informed consent before proceeding, with the option to walk away at no charge.

AI use disclosure

I disclose every place AI is used in my practice. The disclosure is not boilerplate; it is operating procedure.

What AI does in my practice

The Terms.Law site exposes a chatbox labeled AI Legal Analyst. The chatbox helps prospective clients organize the facts of their matter before I see them, surface the right calculator or template, and structure an intake summary. The chatbox is attorney-supervised, runs under system prompts I wrote and revise, and does not give legal advice.

Inside the practice, I use commercial AI tools as research and drafting accelerants in the same way an attorney of an earlier generation used a paralegal and a Westlaw subscription. AI helps me find statute citations, identify the standard structure of a clause type, draft a first cut of a section, and proofread output for internal consistency.

What AI does not do

I draft every demand letter myself. I review every contract myself. I supervise every piece of work product that leaves the practice on my letterhead or under my bar number. AI tools do not sign letters, do not file documents, do not give the client legal advice, and do not appear in any capacity that requires a licensed attorney. The work product is mine, and the bar number on it is mine.

Confidentiality of AI vendor data handling

The AI vendors I use under paid commercial agreements provide written data-handling terms that prohibit training on submitted content, restrict retention to short operational windows, and exclude my submissions from any cross-customer use. Free consumer AI products do not provide those terms and I do not use them on client matters. When a matter involves especially sensitive material (trade secrets, source code, personal health information, financial regulatory correspondence), I either disable AI assistance for that workflow or redact and structure the input so the vendor sees only the analytical question and not the underlying confidential facts.

Confidentiality

Once an engagement is signed, every communication between us is covered by attorney-client privilege and the duty of confidentiality under California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6. That covers what you tell me, what you send me, and what I draft or analyze in response. Privilege survives the close of the matter and does not lapse on a fee dispute or on a subsequent change of counsel.

Communications sent during pre-engagement inquiry, before I have run a conflict check and the client and I have signed the engagement letter, are treated as preliminary and confidential but do not enjoy full attorney-client privilege. The safer assumption: do not send a counterparty's most sensitive material until the engagement is open.

I do not share client information with referral partners, marketing vendors, or any third party except where (a) a court compels disclosure under a valid subpoena, in which case I notify the client and move to quash if appropriate; (b) the client has given written consent to a specific disclosure; or (c) disclosure is permitted under a narrow exception in CRPC 1.6, such as to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm.

California Rule of Professional Conduct compliance

The practice operates under the California Rules of Professional Conduct in their current form. The provisions most directly relevant to how I run this site and how I draft client engagements are:

• CRPC 1.5 on fees. Every fee is reasonable, disclosed in writing, and tied to the scope defined in the engagement letter.
• CRPC 7.1 on communications about services. Nothing on this site, in any service page, in any case study, or in any AI-generated output claims a guaranteed outcome, a contingent result, or a comparison to other attorneys that cannot be factually substantiated. Each matter turns on its facts.
• CRPC 7.2 on advertising. The Terms.Law site is the advertising channel for the practice. It identifies me by name, by bar number, and by jurisdiction of admission. I do not pay for referrals, do not compensate other lawyers for recommending me, and do not run pay-per-lead arrangements that obscure who actually performs the work.
• CRPC 7.3 on solicitation. I do not contact prospective clients in person, by live phone call, or by real-time electronic contact for the purpose of soliciting professional employment. Clients reach me; I do not reach them first.

All marketing claims on the site, including those in the case studies, are written to comply with CRPC 7.1. Outcomes in any past matter are described factually and are not promises that any current or future matter will reach the same result.