Prompt Pilotby Write.law
All prompts

Translate

Explain prenup terms to a client

Turns a prenuptial agreement into a term-by-term explanation the client can actually follow: what each clause does on the worst day it will ever be used, what the state default would have been instead, and which formalities you still have to verify.

About 12 minstarterFamily, Solo / small firm

Your prompt4,837 characters

Still to fill in: Agreement or terms, Governing state / choice of law, Who you represent

RoleYou are a family lawyer who has sat with a hundred clients reading a prenuptial agreement for the first time, most of them weeks before a wedding. You explain each clause by what it does on the worst day it will ever be used, in the words the client uses, and you refuse to say whether to sign: your job is that they know exactly what they are agreeing to.What I needExplain the agreement below to Who you represent under Governing state / choice of law law, as Email the client can reread on their own. Answer what the client has raised: What the client has asked or is worried about.InputsAgreement or terms: Agreement or terms Governing state / choice of law: Governing state / choice of law Who I represent: Who you represent Client's questions and worries: What the client has asked or is worried about Deliverable form: Email the client can reread on their ownHow to work this1. Provision by provision: a plain restatement in the client's words, the Governing state / choice of law default set beside it, one scenario with real numbers, and every term of art defined at first use. Label each changes the default, restates the default, or may not hold up. A restatement of existing law must never read as a concession. 2. Run three futures: a long marriage ending in divorce, death of the wealthier spouse, a business started during the marriage, and say what each spouse walks away with. 3. The enforceability formalities are a checklist for me, never statements of law: disclosure, independent counsel, timing between delivery and signature, execution, each marked [UNVERIFIED - confirm against current Governing state / choice of law statute]. Never supply a number of days or a support-waiver rule from memory, and flag missing schedules and undefined figures the same way.Close with these four sections, every time, without being askedAssumptions I made. Marked [verify] or [safe]: which state's law you applied, whether you treated the choice-of-law clause as controlling, whether you assumed the schedules say what the agreement implies. Where this is weakest. The two plain-English translations that lose the most in simplification. Name the sentence, and say what distinction a court would care about that the client will not hear in it. What would make this materially better. Ranked by impact: the missing schedules, the other party's counsel status, the wedding date, the client's retirement balances. What only you can decide. Options with tradeoffs, never a bare flag. At minimum: give the client the full enforceability picture now. It arms them to negotiate, and it also tells the other side's lawyer which defects to cure before signing, or explain only what the terms do and save the enforceability analysis for negotiation. And whether to raise a sunset clause, which reframes the agreement as temporary and lowers the temperature, or leave the structure alone and spend the client's leverage on the support waiver.Output formatClient-facing, in Email the client can reread on their own. Open with three sentences on the biggest change for the client. Then the provisions in document order, the three scenarios, the [UNVERIFIED] formalities checklist, "Questions for our next call," and "What I could not see."Never do this- If this explanation would fit any prenup in any state, it is too generic. Rebuild it from this agreement's clauses and this client's finances. - No hedging filler. Cut "arguably," "it should be noted," and "it depends." Do not tell the reader to consult an attorney. I am the attorney sending this. - Every statute, waiting period, or disclosure standard must come from my inputs or carry [UNVERIFIED - confirm against current Governing state / choice of law law]. Never invent a code section or a number of days. - Where you do not know whether Governing state / choice of law enforces a support waiver or requires independent counsel, say you do not know and tell me what to look up. Do not smooth over the gap with confident prose. - Do not pad. A clause that does one thing gets three sentences. Length is not value. - Never tell the client whether to sign, and never call a term fair, standard, or reasonable. That decision is the client's; that advice is mine.Before you answer- Could the client read every sentence aloud and know what it means without calling me? - Is there a number of days, dollar threshold, or code section here that did not come from my inputs and sits unmarked? - Did I put the Governing state / choice of law default beside each waiver, and did advocacy slip in anywhere: "fortunately," "this is common," "at least"?

Adds driver's-seat tunes: options instead of answers, questions before work, every citation flagged. Your values come with it.

2

Pressure-test it

Makes the AI switch hats and attack its own answer.

A prenup gets its first genuinely hostile reader on the day the client asks another lawyer to break it. That lawyer's first question is "what did your lawyer tell you this meant?" Read your explanation as the lawyer asking it. Name the two sentences that would look, in hindsight, like they undersold a consequence, and the one term whose plain-English version drops a distinction the client would swear she was never told about. Rewrite each so it would survive being read back in a deposition.
3

Go deeper

Pushes the work further once the basics are right.

Turn the explanation into an ask. Build the negotiation package: a short list of the three changes worth asking for, ranked, each with the practical reason a non-lawyer would find persuasive rather than a legal one; the disclosure schedule the client still has to complete before signing; and a two-paragraph note to opposing counsel that opens with what we accept before it raises anything.

Before you run it

What to gather first

  • The full agreement text, including every schedule and exhibit referenced
  • The state whose law governs, and the state the couple will actually live in
  • Which party you represent and the rough shape of each side's assets and income
  • What the client has already asked you, and what they seem most worried about
  • Whether the other party has their own lawyer, and how close the wedding date is

Watch for

  • Prenup formalities (disclosure standards, independent counsel, review periods, spousal-support waiver limits) are state statutes that get amended. Verify every one against the current text before the client relies on it.
  • A choice-of-law clause often does not control. Enforceability is usually litigated in the state where the divorce is filed, which may not be the state named in the agreement.
  • Do not paste financial schedules containing account numbers, third-party business records, or a non-client's private financial data.
  • The model will state a simplified version of legal effect with the same confidence as an accurate one. Keep a copy of exactly what you send the client; it is the record of what you told them.
  • If the other party is unrepresented, sending them any part of this explanation can create an appearance of advising them and can be used later to attack the agreement.

What comes back

A client-facing explainer in the requested form: three sentences on what the agreement is trying to do and the biggest change for the client; provisions in document order with plain restatement, practical effect, and the state default beside each; three end-to-end scenarios with numbers; an [UNVERIFIED] formalities checklist; and closing sections for "Questions for our next call" and "What I could not see." Followed by Assumptions / Where this is weakest / What would make this better / What only you can decide.

See an example of what you’ll get
What this agreement is doing. It keeps Daniel's interest in Rowan Millwork LLC, and everything that grows out of it, entirely his, during the marriage and after. It also waives your right to ask for spousal support at any income level. Those two things are the whole agreement; the rest is mechanics. Article IV: Separate Property (changes the New York default). Plain words: anything either of you owned before the wedding stays yours alone, and so does anything you buy later with money traced back to it. What changes: without this, income Daniel earns from the business *during* the marriage would generally be marital property. Article IV(c) makes that income separate too. Scenario: the business is worth $2.1M today. If it is worth $6.4M in fifteen years and you divorce, your share of that $4.3M increase under this agreement is $0. Without the agreement, you would be arguing over the appreciation. Article VII: Waiver of Spousal Support (changes the default; may not hold up). Plain words: neither of you can ask a court for support, no matter what happens. What changes: New York courts otherwise set support using a statutory formula based on both incomes. Scenario: you go part-time in 2029 at $48K, he is at $410K, you separate in 2038. Under this article you ask for nothing. Under the default you would have a support claim. [UNVERIFIED - New York limits on support waivers, and the effect of a waiver that leaves one spouse on public assistance, must be confirmed against DRL § 236B and current case law before I tell you this holds.] Article II: Separate Debts (restates the default). You are not responsible for his pre-marriage debts. That was already true. This is not a concession. Formalities I still have to verify [all UNVERIFIED - confirm against current New York statute]: whether the disclosure attached as Schedule A is legally adequate; whether you must be separately represented; whether any minimum period between delivery and signature applies; acknowledgment and notarization requirements. What I could not see. Schedules A and B were not attached to what you sent. Schedule A is Daniel's asset list; the disclosure question turns entirely on it. Article IV(b) also cross-references an "Operating Agreement dated March 2, 2023," which I have not read; it may contain transfer restrictions that matter on death. Questions for our next call. (1) If you stop working for five years, what do you expect to live on if this marriage ends? (2) Do you want the house treated differently from the business? (3) Are you comfortable signing with the schedules blank? --- Assumptions I made. New York law governs [verify - the couple will live in Connecticut, and a Connecticut court may apply its own enforceability rules]. The draft you sent is current [verify]. Schedule A exists and lists Daniel's assets [verify - not provided]. Where this is weakest. The sentence "your share of that $4.3M increase is $0" assumes the appreciation is entirely passive; if your labor contributes to the business, active-appreciation doctrine may bite differently, and the client will not hear that distinction in the plain version. And calling Article II a restatement assumes New York's default rule on premarital debt, which I have not verified against current law. What would make this materially better. Ranked by impact: (1) Schedules A and B: the disclosure question is the whole enforceability analysis, and it turns entirely on what Schedule A actually lists; (2) the Rowan Millwork operating agreement dated March 2, 2023, which Article IV(b) incorporates and which may control what happens to the business on Daniel's death; (3) written confirmation from the drafting lawyer of when the draft was delivered and whether the bride was advised to retain her own counsel: both go to the formalities checklist; (4) the client's own retirement balances, so the Article VII scenario can be run against what she would actually have to live on. What only you can decide. Two calls, and both are yours. First, how much of the enforceability picture goes in this email. Giving her the full [UNVERIFIED] list now lets her ask for independent counsel and a fresh Schedule A while there are still five weeks; it also means the list reaches the drafting lawyer the same night and every defect gets cured before signature. Sending only what the terms do keeps those defects available later and leaves her negotiating without knowing her strongest card. Second, whether to put a sunset clause on the table. Proposing one reframes the agreement as protection for the business's early years rather than a permanent judgment about her, which lowers the temperature five weeks out; leaving the structure alone keeps the client's single ask pointed at Article VII, which is where the money is. Whether she signs at all is hers, and this explainer does not answer it.
Why this prompt is built the way it is
## Framework 1. **One provision at a time.** Plain-words restatement, the state default beside it, one scenario with actual numbers, and every term of art defined at first use. Abstractions do not land with an anxious client, and glossaries go unread. 2. **Three piles.** Changes the state default, restates the state default, or may not hold up. A restatement of existing law is not a concession the other side made, and should never read like one. 3. **Run the futures.** Long marriage ending in divorce, death of the wealthier spouse, a business started during the marriage. Say who ends up with what in each. 4. **Formalities are questions, not answers.** Disclosure, independent counsel, timing between delivery and signature, execution: items to verify against the current statute, never a rule stated from memory. No advocacy anywhere: not fair, not standard, not recommended.