/privilege-log-review

name: privilege-log-review
description: First-pass privilege log review — make the obvious privilege calls and flag the hard ones for attorney review without making close calls. Use when the user says "review the privilege log", "priv log", "check privilege on these docs", or has a log to QA before production.
argument-hint: "[log file, or document set]"

/privilege-log-review

1. Load `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md` → review protocol, priv log format. 2. Follow the workflow and reference below. 3. For each entry: obvious priv / obvious not priv / needs attorney review. Flag reasons. 4. Output: reviewed log with flags. Attorney reviews all flags before production.

---

Privilege Log Review

Disclosed-document use restrictions

Before working with a set of litigation documents, ask: "Were any of these documents obtained through disclosure or discovery in legal proceedings?" If yes:

• **England & Wales (CPR 31.22):** Documents obtained through disclosure are subject to the implied undertaking — you may only use them for the purpose of the proceedings in which they were disclosed, unless the court grants permission, the disclosing party consents, or the document has been read in open court. Using them for a different matter, a different claim, or a commercial purpose without permission is a contempt.
• **US:** Protective orders and Rule 26(c) may impose similar restrictions. Check the order.
• **Other jurisdictions:** Similar restrictions commonly apply. Check the local rule.

Confirm: "This use is within the proceedings in which the documents were disclosed, or I have permission / consent, or the documents are now public." If not confirmed, flag it: "⚠️ Disclosed documents may have use restrictions. Confirm this use is permitted before proceeding."

Matter context

**Matter context.** Check `## Matter workspaces` in the practice-level CLAUDE.md. For litigation-legal the default is `Enabled: ✓` — every case gets its own matter workspace. If `Enabled` is `✗` (you turned it off because you work one case at a time), skip the rest of this paragraph and use practice-level context. If enabled and there is no active matter, ask: "Which matter is this for? Run `/litigation-legal:matter-workspace switch <slug>` or say `practice-level`." Load the active matter's `matter.md` for matter-specific context and overrides. Write outputs to the matter folder at `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/matters/<matter-slug>/`. Never read another matter's files unless `Cross-matter context` is `on`.

---

Purpose

A privilege log has three kinds of entries: obviously privileged, obviously not, and the ones that need thought. This skill sorts the first two kinds so the attorney's time goes entirely to the third.

**This is first pass. Attorney reviews every flag. No exceptions.**

Record fidelity — pinpoints and citation coverage

When this skill cites a rule, local variant, or authority for a privilege call (FRCP 26(b)(5)(A), state rule, local rule, case on waiver scope, case on dominant purpose), two rules apply.

**Pinpoint cites must support the whole proposition.** If the review cites one rule or case to support a multi-part proposition — "the log must describe each document and withhold only materials prepared in anticipation of litigation" — verify the pinpoint covers every element. If it only covers one, split the cite or narrow the proposition. A cite that backs part of a privilege position gets the position rejected when opposing counsel reads the cite and points out it doesn't reach the contested element. This is the "misgrounded citation" failure mode: the cite exists, the passage exists, but it doesn't support the proposition as stated.

**Extract all citations before checking any.** When this review cites authority — or when a separate citation-check is requested on the log, a related brief, or the supporting motion:

1. **First pass: extract.** Read the document and build a list of every citation (rules, cases, statutes, local orders, record cites). Report the count: "Found [N] citations." 2. **Second pass: check.** Check each against the source. Don't sample. Don't stop at the first five. 3. **Report coverage.** "Checked [N] of [M] citations. [K] could not be retrieved — verify manually. [J] confirmed. [I] flagged as potential miscitations. [H] flagged as misgrounded (cite exists but doesn't support the proposition)." 4. **When source text is unavailable, say "could not check," never "confirmed."** A false positive is worse than a "couldn't check" — it lets a bad cite through. 5. **The hardest errors are partial support.** Read the proposition, read the source, compare element by element.

Load context

`~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md` → privilege log format, review protocol.

**Conflicts gate — unbypassable.** Before reviewing a privilege log, check `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/matters/_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 review a privilege log on a matter that hasn't been intaken — the conflicts check is the gate, and a privilege log review is work product that needs to live in the matter file."

**Jurisdiction matters.** Privilege scope (A/C and work product), waiver doctrine, and log-form requirements vary materially across federal circuits and state courts. This review applies the rules for the forum specified in config. If the matter involves a different forum, a transferred case, multi-jurisdictional production, or a choice-of-law question on privilege, the calls here may not transfer — re-run against the controlling forum.

Step 0: Research the forum's privilege-log rules

**Before reviewing entries, research the forum's