/legal-hold

name: legal-hold
description: Issue, refresh, release, or report on legal holds — drafts the hold notice as .docx, updates legal_hold fields in _log.yaml, and calendars the next refresh. Use when the user says "issue a hold", "refresh hold", "release hold", or asks for a portfolio-wide hold status report.
argument-hint: "[slug] [--issue | --refresh | --release | --status]"

/legal-hold

1. If `--status` (no slug): read `_log.yaml`, produce portfolio-wide hold report. 2. Otherwise: load `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/matters/[slug]/matter.md` + log row. 3. Load `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md` → privilege markings, hold template pointer, escalation norms. 4. Follow the workflow and reference below. 5. Route by flag:

• `--issue`: capture scope, custodians, date range, systems. Draft `legal-hold-v1.docx`. Update `legal_hold` fields. Append history entry. Set `next_refresh` (default +6mo).
• `--refresh`: capture scope/custodian changes. Draft next version. Update `last_refresh` + `next_refresh`. Flag departed custodians.
• `--release`: capture release date, retention instruction. Draft release notice. Set `released:` field.

6. Confirm before writing. Show the user the draft notice and the log diff.

---

Legal Hold

Purpose

A legal hold is the most mechanical high-stakes document in-house counsel writes. The notice itself is templated. The failure modes are operational: issued too late, scoped too narrowly, never refreshed, never released. This skill owns all four phases: **issue → refresh → (release) → track**.

The portfolio already flags missing holds; this skill writes them.

Jurisdiction assumption

Preservation duties vary materially by forum. Federal common law (via Zubulake / Residential Funding / Rule 37(e)) differs from state practice; states differ from each other on trigger timing, scope, sanctions, and spoliation remedies; regulatory preservation obligations overlay civil rules in some matters (SEC Rule 17a-4, HIPAA, etc.). The trigger, scope, and sanctions exposure cited in the draft are a starting-point read for the forum named in the matter — confirm with counsel before issuing, refreshing, or releasing.

Load context

• `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/matters/_log.yaml` — log row (legal_hold fields + status)
• `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/matters/[slug]/matter.md` — matter context (counterparty, facts, key custodians from internal_owners)
• `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md` — house style for litigation hold template pointer, privilege marking, escalation norms

**Conflicts gate — unbypassable.** Before issuing, refreshing, or releasing a hold, check `_log.yaml` for the matter slug. If the matter is not in `_log.yaml`, refuse and route:

> "I don't see [matter slug] in the matter log. Run `/litigation-legal:matter-intake` first so the conflicts check runs and the matter workspace is set up. I won't issue, refresh, or release a legal hold on a matter that hasn't been intaken — the conflicts check is the gate, and a hold issued against an unmanaged matter has no `_log.yaml` row to track `last_refresh` / `next_refresh` / `released` against."

Do not proceed on an unintaken matter. Intake is what runs conflicts and writes the `_log.yaml` row the `--refresh` / `--release` / `--status` flags operate against.

Modes

The command takes a flag: `--issue | --refresh | --release | --status`. Default (no flag) → prompt.

`--issue` — first issuance

Required when `legal_hold.issued == false` and the matter is active or reasonably anticipated.

**Before issuing the hold to custodians (the consequential act):** Read `## Who's using this` in `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md`. If the Role is Non-lawyer:

> Issuing a legal hold has legal consequences — the scope, custodian list, and timing create the preservation record the company will be judged on if spoliation is argued later. Have you reviewed this with an attorney? If yes, proceed. If no, here's a brief to bring to them: > > [Generate a 1-page summary: the matter and trigger, the proposed scope and custodians, the forum-specific preservation rule researched, known spoliation exposure, what could go wrong (too broad / too narrow), what to ask the attorney.] > > If you need to find a licensed attorney, solicitor, barrister, or other authorised legal professional in your jurisdiction: your professional regulator's referral service is the fastest starting point (state bar in the US, SRA/Bar Standards Board in England & Wales, Law Society in Scotland/NI/Ireland/Canada/Australia, or your jurisdiction's equivalent).

Do not send the notice without an explicit yes. Drafting and scoping do not require the gate — issuance does.

**Research the applicable preservation rule before issuing.** Identify the jurisdiction and the source of the preservation duty (common law, rule of civil procedure, regulatory preservation obligation, contractual). Confirm the currently operative trigger standard (when the duty attaches), scope standard (what must be preserved), and sanctions exposure (spoliation doctrine for the forum). Cite primary sources. Note that federal and state law can differ materially on trigger timing, scope, and remedy — flag the forum you're relying on. If uncertain, say so and get outside-counsel sign-off before issuing.

> **External deliverable:** the notice below is sent to custodians. Do NOT include a `PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT — PREPARED AT THE DIRECTION OF COUNSEL` header on the outgoing notice; use the attorney-client marking in the template. Confirm the correct marking for your jurisdiction and matter.

**Inputs:** 1. **Scope** — categories of documents, data, communications. Start specific: contracts with counterparty, all communications referencing [project/subject], related