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.

• ~/.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

_log.yaml

_log.yaml

"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."

_log.yaml

--refresh

--release

--status

legal_hold.issued == false

## Who's using this

~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md

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).

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.

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

   [SME VERIFY — scope too broad = operational burden; too narrow = spoliation risk]

2. Custodians — named individuals likely to hold responsive material. Pull suggestions from matter.md internal_owners and from common roles (business lead, HR partner if employment, CISO if data).

   [SME VERIFY — the custodian list is the difference between defensible preservation and a gap argument]

3. Date range — when to start preserving from (usually: triggering event or earlier), through the present + ongoing.
4. Systems — email, Slack/Teams, file shares, devices (including BYOD if applicable), Jira/Asana, CRM, legacy systems.
5. Urgency — if litigation already served or demand received with threat of suit, this goes out today.
6. Effective date — date of the hold.

~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md

[PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION]

DATE: [effective date]
TO: [custodian name]
FROM: [signer — per `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md` default]
RE: LITIGATION HOLD NOTICE — [matter short name]

You are receiving this notice because [company] has determined that [one-
sentence description of the dispute / investigation, avoiding prejudicial
detail]. The law requires preservation of documents and communications
potentially relevant to this matter.

EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, you must preserve:

1. All documents, emails, text messages, Slack/Teams messages, and other
   communications relating to [scope bullet 1].
2. [scope bullet 2]
3. [scope bullet 3]
...

This preservation obligation applies to:
- Email (including sent, archived, deleted folders)
- Slack/Teams/messaging platforms
- Shared drives and cloud storage
- Personal devices used for company business (BYOD)
- Paper documents
- Voicemails
- Calendar entries and meeting notes

DO NOT:
- Delete, modify, destroy, or dispose of any potentially responsive material
- Auto-delete or "Inbox Zero" any email or messaging

Coordinate with [legal contact] before sharing this notice with direct reports
or IT.

Direct questions about this notice or your preservation obligations to [legal
contact]. You may continue to discuss the underlying business subject matter
with colleagues as needed for your work, but do not discuss this legal notice,
the litigation, or legal strategy.

IF YOU ARE UNSURE whether something is covered, ERR ON THE SIDE OF PRESERVING.

Please acknowledge receipt of this notice by [reply / link / form] within
three business days. If you have questions, contact [signer email].

This notice remains in effect until you receive written notice of its
release. You may be asked to reaffirm compliance at periodic intervals.

[Signer signature block]

This is a draft legal hold notice for attorney review, not a notice ready to issue. Issuing a hold triggers preservation obligations the company will be judged on in any later spoliation argument, and the notice itself may be discoverable. A licensed attorney reviews, approves, and issues. Do not distribute this draft unreviewed.

• ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/matters/[slug]/legal-hold-v1.docx

  via the

  docx

  skill
• Appends to

  ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/matters/[slug]/history.md

  :

  ## [YYYY-MM-DD] — Legal hold issued
  
  Hold issued to [N] custodians: [list].
  Scope: [one-line summary].
  Next refresh: [YYYY-MM-DD (default issued + 6 months)].

• Updates

  _log.yaml

  row:
  yaml

  legal_hold:
    issued: true
    issued_date: [YYYY-MM-DD]
    scope: "[one-line summary]"
    custodians: [list]
    last_refresh: [YYYY-MM-DD]   # same as issued_date on first issuance
    next_refresh: [YYYY-MM-DD]   # default: issued_date + 6 months
    released: null

next_refresh < today

1. Any scope changes since last refresh (new topics surfaced in discovery, new custodians, new systems).
2. Any custodians to add or remove (departures need special handling — see below).
3. Re-confirmation language.

• ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/matters/[slug]/legal-hold-v[N].docx

  (next version number)

• history.md

  entry

• _log.yaml

  : updates

  last_refresh

  and

  next_refresh

  fields; modifies

  custodians

  list if changed

## Who's using this

~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md

Releasing a legal hold has legal consequences — once released, custodians may begin deleting material. Release at the wrong time creates spoliation exposure. 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 status, why release is proposed now, related-claim / appeal / SOL exposure, custodian impact, what could go wrong, 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).

1. Confirmation of release authority (usually the signer or GC).
2. Release date.
3. Retention instruction — what happens to the material that was under hold? (Return to normal retention? Continue preserving for defined period? Transfer to archive?)

• ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/matters/[slug]/legal-hold-release.docx

• history.md

  entry

• _log.yaml

  : sets

  released: [YYYY-MM-DD]

• Refresh overdue: [list slugs where next_refresh < today]
• Refresh due within 30 days: [list]
• Matters active without hold issued: [list — high/critical risk first]
• Matters closed with hold still active: [list — consider release]

• Enforce preservation. It issues the notice; IT/custodians preserve. The skill flags when a custodian leaves (so IT can preserve at system level) but doesn't reach into systems.
• Make scope calls alone. The skill proposes scope from matter context; the user confirms. Scope too broad = operational burden. Scope too narrow = spoliation risk. User's judgment.
• Auto-refresh without review. Even when

  next_refresh

  comes up, the user reviews scope changes before the refresh notice goes out.
• Send the notice. Drafts .docx; user sends via email per house convention. (Future integration: Gmail/O365 MCP could send directly after user review.)