privilege-log-review

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English

🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

/privilege-log-review

Load

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

→ review protocol, priv log format.

Follow the workflow and reference below.
For each entry: obvious priv / obvious not priv / needs attorney review. Flag reasons.
Output: reviewed log with flags. Attorney reviews all flags before production.

加载

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

→ 审查协议、特权日志格式。

遵循下方的工作流程和参考内容。
针对每个条目：标记为明显享有特权/明显不享有特权/需律师审查，并注明原因。
输出：带有标记的已审查日志。律师需在正式提交前审查所有标记条目。

Privilege Log Review

特权日志审查

Disclosed-document use restrictions

披露文档使用限制

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."

在处理一组诉讼文档前，需询问：“这些文档是否是通过法律程序中的披露或证据开示获得的？”如果是：

英格兰及威尔士（CPR 31.22）： 通过披露获得的文档受默示承诺约束——仅可将其用于披露所涉诉讼程序的目的，除非获得法院许可、披露方同意，或该文档已在公开法庭宣读。未经许可将其用于其他事项、其他索赔或商业用途构成藐视法庭。
美国： 保护令及Rule 26(c)可能施加类似限制，请核查相关命令。
其他司法管辖区： 通常也适用类似限制，请核查当地规则。

确认：“本次使用符合文档披露所涉诉讼程序的目的，或我已获得许可/同意，或该文档现已公开。”若无法确认，标记：“⚠️ 披露文档可能存在使用限制，请在继续操作前确认本次使用已获许可。”

Matter context

事项背景

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

✗

(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

on

事项背景：查看业务级CLAUDE.md中的

## Matter workspaces

部分。对于诉讼法律业务，默认设置为

Enabled: ✓

——每个案件都有独立的事项工作区。若

Enabled

为

✗

（因您一次仅处理一个案件而关闭），则跳过本段剩余内容，使用业务级背景。若已启用且无活跃事项，请询问：“这是针对哪个事项的？请运行

/litigation-legal:matter-workspace switch <slug>

或说明

practice-level

。”加载活跃事项的

matter.md

文件以获取事项特定背景和覆盖规则。将输出写入事项文件夹

~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/matters/<matter-slug>/

。除非

Cross-matter context

开启，否则切勿读取其他事项的文件。

Purpose

目的

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.

特权日志包含三类条目：明显享有特权、明显不享有特权，以及需要斟酌的条目。本技能负责分类前两类条目，让律师的时间完全投入到第三类条目上。

这只是首轮审查。律师必须审查所有标记条目，无一例外。

Record fidelity — pinpoints and citation coverage

记录准确性——精准引用与覆盖范围

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:

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."
Second pass: check. Check each against the source. Don't sample. Don't stop at the first five.
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)."
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.
The hardest errors are partial support. Read the proposition, read the source, compare element by element.

当本技能引用规则、地方变体或权威依据来判定特权（如FRCP 26(b)(5)(A)、州规则、地方规则、弃权范围相关判例、主要目的相关判例）时，需遵循两条规则。

精准引用必须支持整个主张。 如果审查引用某一规则或判例来支持多部分主张——“日志必须描述每份文档，仅扣留为预期诉讼准备的材料”——需验证精准引用是否涵盖所有要素。若仅涵盖一个要素，需拆分引用或缩小主张范围。当对方律师阅读引用并指出其未涉及争议要素时，仅支持部分特权立场的引用会导致立场被驳回。这就是“引用依据不足”的失败模式：引用存在，段落存在，但无法支持所述主张。

先提取所有引用再进行核查。 当本次审查引用权威依据——或单独要求对日志、相关摘要或支持动议进行引用核查时：

首轮：提取：阅读文档并列出所有引用（规则、判例、法规、地方命令、记录引用）。报告数量：“发现[N]处引用。”
次轮：核查：逐一对照来源进行核查。不要抽样，不要在前五个引用处停止。
报告覆盖情况：“已核查[M]处引用中的[N]处。[K]处无法检索——请手动验证。[J]处已确认。[I]处标记为潜在错误引用。[H]处标记为依据不足（引用存在但无法支持主张）。”
当源文本不可用时，需注明“无法核查”，绝不能写“已确认”。 误报比“无法核查”更严重——它会让错误引用蒙混过关。
最棘手的错误是部分支持。 阅读主张，阅读来源，逐一对比要素。

Load context

加载背景

~/.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.

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

→ 特权日志格式、审查协议。

冲突检查门——不可绕过。 在审查特权日志前，查看

~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/matters/_log.yaml

中的事项slug。若事项不在

_log.yaml

中，拒绝操作并引导：

“我在事项日志中未找到[事项slug]。请先运行
/litigation-legal:matter-intake
以启动冲突检查并设置事项工作区。我不会审查未进行事项录入的特权日志——冲突检查是必经环节，且特权日志审查结果属于工作成果，需存储在事项文件中。”

司法管辖区至关重要。 特权范围（律师-客户特权及工作成果特权）、弃权原则和日志格式要求在联邦巡回法院和州法院之间存在重大差异。本次审查适用配置中指定的法院规则。若事项涉及其他法院、移送案件、多司法管辖区提交或特权法律适用问题，此处的判定可能不适用——需针对管辖法院重新运行审查。

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

步骤0：研究法院的特权日志规则

Before reviewing entries, research the forum's privilege-log requirements (FRCP 26(b)(5)(A) or state equivalent), any local rule variant, and the judge's standing orders. Identify the required fields, the level of description, and any category-log or metadata-log accommodations. Cite primary sources.

No silent supplement. If a research query to the configured legal research tool (Westlaw, CourtListener, Trellis, Descrybe, or firm platform) returns few or no results for the forum's rule, waiver doctrine, or local variant, report what was found and stop. Do NOT fill the gap from web search or model knowledge without asking. Say: "The search returned [N] results from [tool]. Coverage appears thin for [rule / doctrine]. Options: (1) broaden the search query, (2) try a different research tool, (3) search the web — results will be tagged

[web search — verify]

and should be checked against a primary source before relying, or (4) leave the

[UNCERTAIN]

marker and stop here. Which would you like?" A lawyer decides whether to accept lower-confidence sources; the skill does not decide for them.

Source attribution. Tag every rule reference and authority in the review output with where it came from:

[Westlaw]

[CourtListener]

[Trellis]

[Descrybe]

, or the MCP tool name for citations retrieved from a legal research connector;

[web search — verify]

for web-search citations;

[model knowledge — verify]

for citations recalled from training data;

[user provided]

for citations the reviewing attorney supplied. Citations tagged

verify

carry higher fabrication risk and should be checked first. Never strip or collapse the tags — they are the reviewing attorney's signal about which authorities to re-confirm before service.

Waiver doctrine differs by privilege type:

Attorney-client privilege waiver is often broad: subject-matter waiver can sweep in related communications on the same topic.
Work-product waiver is narrower: courts typically distinguish opinion work product (stronger protection) from fact work product. Waiver of fact work product doesn't automatically waive opinion work product.

Confirm the forum's waiver doctrine for each privilege claimed before recommending production of anything.

[UNCERTAIN]

flags stay on waiver calls until counsel confirms.

在审查条目之前，研究管辖法院的特权日志要求（FRCP 26(b)(5)(A)或州级等效规则）、任何地方规则变体以及法官的常规命令。确定所需字段、描述级别，以及任何分类日志或元数据日志的调整。引用原始来源。

不得补充不确定内容。 若向配置的法律研究工具（Westlaw、CourtListener、Trellis、Descrybe或律所平台）发出的研究查询返回的法院规则、弃权原则或地方变体结果很少或没有，需报告已发现内容并停止操作。不得未经询问就通过网络搜索或模型知识填补空白。需说明：“从[工具]检索到[N]条结果。[规则/原则]的覆盖范围似乎有限。选项：(1) 扩大搜索查询范围，(2) 尝试其他研究工具，(3) 进行网络搜索——结果将标记为

[web search — verify]

，在依赖前需对照原始来源核查，或(4) 保留

[UNCERTAIN]

标记并停止操作。您希望选择哪个？”律师可决定是否接受置信度较低的来源；本技能不得自行决定。

来源归因。 在审查输出中标记每个规则引用和权威依据的来源：从法律研究连接器检索的引用标记为

[Westlaw]

、

[CourtListener]

、

[Trellis]

、

[Descrybe]

或MCP工具名称；网络搜索的引用标记为

[web search — verify]

；从训练数据中召回的引用标记为

[model knowledge — verify]

；审查律师提供的引用标记为

[user provided]

。标记为

verify

的引用存在较高的伪造风险，应优先核查。切勿移除或合并这些标记——它们是审查律师判断哪些权威依据需在提交前重新确认的信号。

弃权原则因特权类型而异：

律师-客户特权弃权通常范围较广：主题弃权可能涵盖同一主题的相关通信。
工作成果特权弃权范围较窄：法院通常区分意见工作成果（保护力度更强）与事实工作成果。事实工作成果弃权不会自动导致意见工作成果弃权。

在建议提交任何文档前，需确认管辖法院针对每项主张特权的弃权原则。

[UNCERTAIN]

标记将保留在弃权判定中，直至律师确认。

The calls

判定规则

Three-state rule. The skill never silently decides a subjective threshold isn't met. On any uncertain call — dominant purpose unclear, litigation contemplation borderline, mixed legal/business content, ambiguous third-party presence — the skill keeps the privilege designation on and adds a ⚠️ flag for the attorney. Under-marking waives privilege (one-way door); over-marking is corrected by the attorney in review (two-way door). Prefer the recoverable error.

In-house counsel privilege is jurisdiction-specific and contested. Before classifying any communication with in-house counsel as privileged, check the jurisdiction:

US: In-house counsel communications are generally privileged when made for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice, and the attorney is acting in a legal (not business) capacity. The legal-vs-business distinction is fact-specific and contested.
EU (competition / DG COMP proceedings): Under Akzo Nobel Chemicals v. Commission (C-550/07 P), communications with in-house counsel are NOT privileged in EU competition proceedings. The CJEU held privilege applies only to communications with independent external lawyers. If the matter involves EU competition or state aid, in-house counsel documents are compellable.
Germany (Syndikusanwalt): The German Syndikusanwalt has a hybrid status. Privilege depends on the capacity in which the lawyer was acting and whether the communication is in the "advocate" or "employee" role. Post-2016 registration rules changed the analysis.
UK: In-house counsel privilege generally recognized, but the "dominant purpose" test applies, and the legal-vs-commercial advice distinction is scrutinized.
France, Belgium, some other EU: In-house lawyers may not be members of the bar, and their communications may have no privilege at all.

Never classify an in-house counsel communication as "confidently privileged" without stating which privilege regime applies. If the matter involves non-US jurisdictions, especially EU competition or any EU regulator: "Documents from in-house counsel may have NO privilege in [jurisdiction]. Under Akzo Nobel, in-house communications are compellable in EU competition proceedings. Flag for review by a [jurisdiction] litigation specialist before asserting privilege."

The ✅ "confidently privileged, no flag" tier below is the one designed to bypass attorney review. That's exactly where the Akzo Nobel risk lives. When the jurisdiction is non-US or the matter touches EU regulators, there is no ✅ tier for in-house communications — everything goes to 🟡 "flag for attorney review with jurisdiction note."

三态规则。本技能绝不会默默判定未达到主观阈值。 对于任何不确定的判定——主要目的不明确、诉讼预期模糊、法律/商业内容混合、第三方存在不明确——本技能将保留特权标记并添加⚠️标记供律师处理。标记不足会导致特权放弃（单向门）；标记过度可由律师在审查中纠正（双向门）。优先选择可挽回的错误。

内部法律顾问特权具有司法管辖区特异性且存在争议。 在将与内部法律顾问的任何通信归类为享有特权之前，需核查司法管辖区：

美国： 当通信目的是获取或提供法律建议，且律师以法律（而非商业）身份行事时，与内部法律顾问的通信通常享有特权。法律与商业角色的区分取决于具体事实且存在争议。
欧盟（竞争/DG COMP程序）： 根据Akzo Nobel Chemicals v. Commission（C-550/07 P）判例，在欧盟竞争程序中，与内部法律顾问的通信不享有特权。欧盟法院裁定，特权仅适用于与独立外部律师的通信。若事项涉及欧盟竞争或国家援助，内部法律顾问的文档可被强制披露。
德国（Syndikusanwalt）： 德国企业法律顾问具有混合身份。特权取决于律师行事的身份，以及通信属于“辩护人”还是“员工”角色。2016年后的注册规则改变了分析方式。
英国： 内部法律顾问特权普遍得到认可，但需适用“主要目的”测试，且法律与商业建议的区分会受到严格审查。
法国、比利时及部分其他欧盟国家： 内部律师可能无法成为律师协会成员，其通信可能完全不享有特权。

若未说明适用的特权制度，绝不能将内部法律顾问通信归类为“明确享有特权”。 若事项涉及非美国司法管辖区，尤其是欧盟竞争或任何欧盟监管机构：“在[司法管辖区]，内部法律顾问的文档可能不享有任何特权。根据Akzo Nobel判例，在欧盟竞争程序中，内部通信可被强制披露。请在主张特权前，由[司法管辖区]诉讼专家审查并标记。”

下方的✅“明确享有特权，无标记”层级旨在绕过律师审查。而Akzo Nobel风险恰好存在于此。当司法管辖区为非美国或事项涉及欧盟监管机构时，内部通信无✅层级——所有条目均归入🟡“标记供律师审查并注明司法管辖区”。

Confidently privileged (✅) — keep designation, no flag

明确享有特权（✅）——保留标记，无标记

Communication between client and outside counsel seeking/providing legal advice, no third parties copied
Communication between client and in-house counsel, clearly legal (not business) advice, no third parties
Work product created in anticipation of litigation, by or for counsel
Communications within the control group about legal strategy

客户与外部法律顾问之间寻求/提供法律建议的通信，无第三方抄送
客户与内部法律顾问之间明确为法律（非商业）建议的通信，无第三方
为预期诉讼准备的工作成果，由法律顾问制作或为法律顾问制作
控制组内关于法律策略的通信

Uncertain — keep designation AND flag (✅ + ⚠️)

不确定——保留标记并添加标记（✅ + ⚠️）

The default for anything that isn't confidently in ✅ or ❌. The skill does not withhold a privilege designation on its own assessment of a subjective test. Examples:

In-house counsel doing both legal and business — was this communication legal advice or business advice? The dominant-purpose call is the attorney's, not the skill's.
Third party present — is the third party within the privilege (common interest, agent) or does their presence waive? Keep the designation; flag for attorney.
Mixed purpose documents — part legal, part business. Partial redaction? Full withhold? Produce? Keep the designation; flag for attorney to decide the treatment.
Attachments — analyze separately and keep each attachment's designation unless confidently ❌; flag the ones where privilege turns on a subjective call.
Pre-litigation work product — "reasonable contemplation of litigation" is fact-specific; keep the designation; flag.
Waiver risk — later-share history is ambiguous; keep the designation; flag the waiver question.

Each flag records the specific open question and the evidence cutting each way, so the attorney can decide without re-reading the document cold.

任何不属于明确✅或❌的情况均默认归入此类。本技能不会根据自身对主观测试的评估撤销特权标记。示例：

内部法律顾问同时处理法律和商业事务——此通信是法律建议还是商业建议？主要目的的判定由律师而非本技能完成。
第三方在场——第三方是否属于特权范围（共同利益、代理人），还是其在场会导致特权放弃？保留标记，标记供律师处理。
混合目的文档——部分法律内容，部分商业内容。是部分编辑？全部扣留？提交？保留标记，标记供律师决定处理方式。
附件——单独分析并保留每个附件的标记，除非明确为❌；标记那些特权取决于主观判定的附件。
诉前工作成果——“合理预期诉讼”取决于具体事实；保留标记，标记。
弃权风险——后续共享历史不明确；保留标记，标记弃权问题。

每个标记需记录具体的未决问题及正反两方面的证据，以便律师无需重新阅读文档即可做出判定。

Confidently not privileged (❌) — recommend remove, but note the assessment

明确不享有特权（❌）——建议移除标记，但需记录评估结果

Only for the unambiguous cases. The output still records the assessment rationale so the attorney can spot-check; it does not remove the designation from the log on its own.

No attorney involved anywhere
Business advice with a lawyer CC'd (CC'ing legal doesn't make it privileged)
Underlying facts (facts aren't privileged — communications about facts can be)
Third party copied who's clearly outside privilege (breaks confidentiality)
Attachments that are independently non-privileged (the email might be privileged; the attached spreadsheet of sales numbers is not)

If any of these is close — the third party might be an agent, the lawyer's CC might actually be on a legal request — it's uncertain, not ❌. Route it to the uncertain bucket and flag.

仅适用于明确无误的情况。输出仍需记录评估理由，以便律师抽查；本技能不会自行从日志中移除标记。

任何环节均无律师参与
抄送律师的商业建议（抄送法律部门不会使其享有特权）
基础事实（事实本身不享有特权——关于事实的通信可能享有特权）
抄送明确不属于特权范围的第三方（破坏保密性）
独立不享有特权的附件（邮件可能享有特权；但附带的销售数据电子表格不享有特权）

若任何情况属于“接近”——第三方可能是代理人，抄送律师可能实际涉及法律请求——则属于不确定情况，而非❌。归入不确定类别并标记。

Workflow

工作流程

Step 1: Format check

步骤1：格式检查

Does the log have what it needs?

Field	Present?
Date
Author
Recipients (all — TO, CC, BCC)
Document type
Privilege claimed (A/C, WP, both)
Description (enough to assess without revealing privileged content)

Missing fields → flag for completion before substantive review.

日志是否包含所需内容？

字段	是否存在？
日期
作者
收件人（全部——收件人、抄送、密送）
文档类型
主张的特权（律师-客户、工作成果、两者皆有）
描述（足够评估且不泄露特权内容）

缺失字段→标记需补充完整后再进行实质性审查。

Step 2: Entry-by-entry

步骤2：逐条审查

For each entry:

Entry [N] ([Bates]): [✅ Priv | ✅ Priv + ⚠️ Flag | ❌ Not priv (assessed)]
[If ✅ (no flag): one-line reason]
[If ✅ + ⚠️: keep designation; the specific question the attorney needs to answer; evidence cutting each way]
[If ❌: one-line reason — but the designation stays on the log until the attorney removes it]

Never produce an entry that silently strips a privilege designation based on the skill's own subjective call. A ❌ is a recommendation logged alongside the flag; the attorney acts on it.

针对每个条目：

条目[N] ([Bates编号]): [✅ 享有特权 | ✅ 享有特权 + ⚠️ 标记 | ❌ 不享有特权（已评估）]
[若为✅（无标记）：一行理由]
[若为✅ + ⚠️：保留标记；律师需解答的具体问题；正反两方面证据]
[若为❌：一行理由——但标记需保留在日志中，直至律师移除]

绝不能基于本技能自身的主观判定，默默移除条目的特权标记。 ❌是记录在标记旁的建议；由律师采取行动。

Step 3: Pattern flags

步骤3：模式标记

Across the log:

Same issue repeating? (E.g., same third party on 50 entries — one decision resolves 50 flags)
Over-designation pattern? (If everything's designated without differentiation, surface it for the attorney — but the call to narrow the log is the attorney's, not the skill's. Under-designation waives; over-designation is correctable.)
Under-description? (Descriptions so vague a court would order in camera review)

查看整个日志：

是否存在重复问题？（例如，50个条目涉及同一第三方——一个决定即可解决50个标记）
是否存在过度标记模式？（若所有条目均被标记而无区分，需告知律师——但缩小日志范围的判定由律师而非本技能完成。标记不足会导致特权放弃；标记过度可纠正。）
描述是否过于简略？（描述过于模糊，法院可能要求当庭审查）

Output

输出

Before the privilege log is served on the opposing party (the consequential act — this includes serving the log AND designating documents withheld or produced under a protective-order designation such as Confidential / Highly Confidential / AEO): Read

## Who's using this

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

. If the Role is Non-lawyer:

Submitting a privilege log and designating documents in discovery both have legal consequences — over-designation risks sanctions and loss of credibility; under-designation risks waiver; a misdesignated production may be unrecallable. 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, log entry counts, the ⚠️ flags and close calls, pattern observations (over-designation, vague descriptions), waiver-doctrine posture by privilege type, what could go wrong on service or designation, 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 treat the log as service-ready without an explicit yes. First-pass review, sorting, and flagging do not require the gate — service and designation do.

markdown

[WORK-PRODUCT HEADER — per plugin config ## Outputs — differs by role; see `## Who's using this`]

在向对方当事人提交特权日志之前（这是具有法律后果的行为——包括提交日志以及根据保护令标记扣留或提交的文档，如保密/高度保密/AEO）： 查看

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

中的

## Who's using this

部分。若角色为非律师：

提交特权日志并在证据开示中标记文档均具有法律后果——过度标记可能面临制裁并丧失可信度；标记不足可能导致特权放弃；标记错误的提交可能无法撤回。您是否已与律师审查过此内容？若是，请继续。若否，请向律师提交以下摘要：

[生成1页摘要：事项、日志条目数量、⚠️标记及难以判定的条目、模式观察（过度标记、模糊描述）、按特权类型划分的弃权原则立场、提交或标记可能出现的问题、需向律师询问的内容。]

若您需要在所在司法管辖区寻找持牌律师、事务律师、大律师或其他授权法律专业人士：您所在行业监管机构的 referral service 是最快的起点（美国为州律师协会，英格兰及威尔士为SRA/Bar Standards Board，苏格兰/北爱尔兰/爱尔兰/加拿大/澳大利亚为Law Society，或您所在司法管辖区的等效机构）。

在未得到明确同意前，不得将日志视为可提交状态。首轮审查、分类和标记无需经过此环节；但提交和标记需要。

markdown

[工作成果标题——根据插件配置## Outputs，因角色而异；请查看`## Who's using this`]

Privilege Log Review: [Matter] — [date]

特权日志审查：[事项] — [日期]

Applicable rule: [FRCP 26(b)(5)(A) / state rule / local rule / standing order — pinpoint cites]

[UNCERTAIN — verify currency]

Entries reviewed: [N] Results: [N] ✅ confident priv / [N] ✅+⚠️ priv kept & flagged / [N] ❌ recommend remove (attorney confirms)

适用规则： [FRCP 26(b)(5)(A)/州规则/地方规则/常规命令——精准引用]

[UNCERTAIN — 请验证时效性]

已审查条目数量： [N] 结果： [N] ✅ 明确享有特权 / [N] ✅+⚠️ 保留特权标记并标记 / [N] ❌ 建议移除标记（需律师确认）

✅ + ⚠️ Flagged — designation kept, attorney decides

✅ + ⚠️ 已标记——保留标记，由律师判定

Entry	Bates	Issue	Evidence for priv	Evidence against	Question
[N]	[range]	[what's subjective]	[one line]	[one line]	[the specific call to make]

条目	Bates编号	问题	支持特权的证据	反对特权的证据	需判定的问题
[N]	[范围]	[主观问题]	[一行内容]	[一行内容]	[具体需做出的判定]

❌ Recommend remove designation (attorney confirms before stripping)

❌ 建议移除标记（律师确认后再移除）

Entry	Bates	Reason

Recorded, not executed. The skill does not remove privilege designations from the log — the attorney does, after reviewing the rationale.

条目	Bates编号	理由

已记录，未执行。本技能不会从日志中移除特权标记——需律师在审查理由后执行。

✅ Privileged (no action)

✅ 享有特权（无需操作）

[Count. List available on request.]

[数量。可按需提供列表。]

Pattern observations

模式观察

[Repeating issues, over-designation, description problems]

[重复问题、过度标记、描述问题]

Marker discipline

标记规范

[VERIFY: factual assertion about document/custodian/date]

[UNCERTAIN: close privilege call / waiver scope / doctrine question]

[CITE NEEDED: rule, local variant, or authority supporting a call]

Attorney must review all ⚠️ and ❌ before any action.

Privileged source material. This review reads entries and underlying documents that are, by definition, privilege-candidate material. The review output inherits that status — keep it with privileged materials, mark it appropriately, and don't circulate outside the privilege circle. Distributing it can itself waive protection.

undefined

[VERIFY: 关于文档/保管人/日期的事实主张]

[UNCERTAIN: 特权判定存疑/弃权范围/原则问题]

[CITE NEEDED: 支持判定的规则、地方变体或权威依据]

律师必须在采取任何行动前审查所有⚠️和❌条目。

特权源材料。 本次审查读取的条目和基础文档本质上属于特权候选材料。审查输出继承此状态——需与特权材料一同保存，进行适当标记，不得在特权圈子外传播。分发审查输出本身可能导致保护放弃。

undefined

What this skill emphatically does not do

本技能明确不执行的操作

Make close calls. ⚠️ means "a human decides." On any subjective test (dominant purpose, reasonable contemplation, common-interest scope, waiver by later sharing) the skill keeps the privilege designation on and flags.
Strip a privilege designation from the log based on its own assessment. ❌ is a recommendation recorded for the attorney, not an action taken against the log.
Produce or withhold documents. It advises; attorney decides; attorney acts.
Guarantee correctness on ✅ calls. The attorney is responsible for the log. This is a first pass.

做出模棱两可的判定。⚠️意味着“由人类决定”。对于任何主观测试（主要目的、合理预期、共同利益范围、后续共享导致弃权），本技能将保留特权标记并标记。
根据自身评估从日志中移除特权标记。❌是记录给律师的建议，而非针对日志采取的行动。
提交或扣留文档。本技能仅提供建议；由律师判定；由律师执行。
保证✅判定的正确性。律师对日志负责。这只是首轮审查。

Close with the next-steps decision tree

以下一步决策树收尾

End with the next-steps decision tree per CLAUDE.md

## Outputs

. Customize the options to what this skill just produced — the five default branches (draft the X, escalate, get more facts, watch and wait, something else) are a starting point, not a lock-in. The tree is the output; the lawyer picks.

根据CLAUDE.md

## Outputs

中的下一步决策树收尾。根据本技能生成的内容自定义选项——五个默认分支（起草X、升级、获取更多事实、观望、其他）是起点，而非固定选项。决策树是输出内容；由律师选择。