US-Licensed Attorney: Review SaaS Disclaimer + ToS for Legal-Tech Platform (Fixed Fee)

Background (read first) LexPrompt sells subscription access to a library of prompt templates that legal professionals use with third-party AI systems (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Copilot). Templates are organized by practice area, task type, jurisdiction, and AI model. Some templates will eventually carry a "Verified" designation after an attorney-review process (not yet live); today, none do. Plans: Free, Pro ($19/mo, solo), Firm ($39/seat/mo, teams). Nothing currently restricts signup to licensed attorneys. The platform is launch-ready; this review is a pre-launch gate. A complete draft disclaimer exists (attached: LexPrompt_Legal_Disclaimer.docx). It defines four surfaces: a full disclaimer page, a global footer notice, a per-prompt notice (web + document export), and a user acknowledgment at signup/checkout. Part A — Disclaimer review (core scope) Review the attached draft disclaimer and deliver a redline plus a short memo answering the following questions: Liability limitation enforceability. Is the "No Warranty; Limitation of Liability" section enforceable as drafted for a NJ LLC operating a consumer-facing SaaS, with users concentrated in the US? Flag any state-specific weaknesses (NJ as home state; CA given jurisdiction-tagged California content) and recommend fixes. Assent mechanics. Should the user acknowledgment (Section 4 of the draft) be implemented as a mandatory checkbox at signup and again at checkout, or is conspicuous notice sufficient? Recommend the implementation that creates the strongest assent record proportionate to a $19–39/mo product. Unauthorized practice of law (UPL) and non-lawyer users. Nothing restricts non-lawyers from subscribing. The acknowledgment language presumes "professional review." Assess UPL exposure and recommend: (a) whether the Terms of Service should include an explicit provision addressing non-lawyer use, (b) whether the acknowledgment needs alternative or additional language for non-lawyer subscribers, and (c) whether any marketing or product claims should be constrained accordingly. "Verified" designation. When the attorney-review program launches, prompts will display a "Verified" mark. Review the draft's characterization of Verified status (point-in-time review, no ongoing warranty). Does the language adequately avoid creating warranty or negligent-misrepresentation exposure? Recommend any changes to how the designation should be described, and any disclosures the review process itself should carry (e.g., reviewer licensure, review date display). Professional-responsibility framing. The draft references lawyers' duties (competence, diligence, supervision of AI-assisted work, candor to tribunals). Confirm the framing is accurate and appropriately general, and does not itself constitute legal advice or overstate/understate the current state of bar guidance on AI use. Part A deliverables: (1) redlined disclaimer ready for publication; (2) memo answering questions 1–5 with recommendations (2–4 pages is sufficient — practical recommendations preferred over survey). Part B — Terms of Service & Privacy Policy (quote separately) The disclaimer references a LexPrompt Terms of Service. Provide a separate fixed-fee quote for: Terms of Service appropriate to the product: subscription terms (Stripe-billed monthly, 14-day trial, seat-based Firm tier), acceptable use, IP ownership of templates vs. user-created content (users can save their own prompts; a fork/derivative feature is planned), the Verified designation, account termination, dispute resolution/governing law (recommend arbitration vs. courts for this profile), and integration of the disclaimer's liability provisions so the documents don't conflict. Privacy Policy covering: Supabase-hosted account data, Stripe payment processing, Sentry error telemetry (configured to exclude prompt text and user identifiers), product analytics, and the Chrome extension's data handling (the extension reads/writes the page DOM of third-party AI chat sites to inject prompt text; it should be accurate about what is and isn't collected). US-focused; note what would change if EU users materialize. Part B deliverables: publication-ready ToS and Privacy Policy. Part C — Optional flat-fee add-on A one-page recommendation on the Chrome extension's disclaimer surface: the extension injects prompts directly into third-party AI sites, bypassing all website notices. Recommend the minimum effective notice (e.g., one-time first-run acknowledgment) and its text. Out of scope Entity/corporate matters, contractor agreements, trademark, litigation, tax, and the design of the attorney-verification program itself (beyond the Q4 disclosure recommendations). No ongoing retainer is contemplated by this engagement. Proposal requirements Please respond with: Your state(s) of licensure and bar number (will be independently verified before hire), and confirmation of active status and current malpractice coverage. Direct experience with legal-tech, attorney-facing products, or UPL analysis — one or two concrete examples. Fixed fee for Part A, separate fixed fee for Part B, and Part C if interested. Turnaround time for Part A. Confirmation you will provide a standard engagement letter establishing the attorney-client relationship for this scope. Working style All work reviewed against deliverables as specified; questions answered asynchronously in writing; no meetings required unless you request one. Source materials provided at engagement start: the draft disclaimer, current site copy, and product screenshots as needed.