Business & Operations

Use when preparing a litigation hold notice and preservation-scope summary — issuing a new hold, refreshing an existing one, or releasing a closed one — as draft legal work product for attorney review before distribution to custodians.

Use when building a structured deposition outline from the case theory, witness profile, and documentary record to produce a focused, attorney-ready map for taking or defending a deposition.

Use when building an element-by-element claim chart — mapping patent claim limitations or the elements of a civil cause of action or affirmative defense against evidence — to produce a structured gap analysis for attorney review.

Use when drafting a single section of a litigation brief — such as a statement of facts, argument section, standard of review, or conclusion — that is cited to the record, consistent with the case theory, and fully flagged for attorney verification before filing.

Use when scoping a legal-research task before any research is conducted, producing a research roadmap of statute leads, case-law areas, search terms, and source-hierarchy targets — with no citations and no analysis — so the attorney can approve the scope before authority is gathered.

Use when drafting a response to a routine, recurring legal inquiry from a configured template, with a built-in escalation gate that stops the templated path when the matter shows characteristics that require individualized counsel review.

Use when a document is believed final and ready to sign — to run a pre-signature completeness checklist, identify signers and signing order, flag blockers, and produce a routing plan for attorney review before the document is sent for execution.

Use when preparing a structured briefing for a meeting with legal relevance — assembling background, participants, agenda, key documents, open issues, legal considerations, talking points, and a follow-up action-item tracker from the materials provided.

Use when classifying whether cited sources, authorities, quotations, dates, and factual claims in draft legal work product are supported by materials available in the session, applying the source hierarchy in `core/source-and-citation-discipline.md`.

Use when applying a structured, jurisdiction-agnostic method to identify, rate, and prioritize legal risks in a situation, producing a risk register with severity bands and a prioritized summary for attorney review.

Use when checking whether a legal memo, contract review, demand letter, risk matrix, research summary, draft filing, or other legal AI output is reliable enough to rely on — adversarially stress-testing it before attorney review to surface invented authority, unsupported claims, weak reasoning, jurisdiction and deadline gaps, and professional-responsibility issues.

Use when reviewing draft legal work product for confidential client information, privileged communications, work-product labeling, redaction/anonymization needs, external-facing disclosure risk, and safer versions for the intended recipient.

Use when checking whether draft legal work product matches the requested format, required sections, labels, tables, chronology, checklist, matrix, memo, email, demand letter, client update, or research-summary structure.

Use when revising draft legal work product to remove AI-sounding filler, vague risk language, unsupported certainty, and style defects while preserving citations, defined terms, quotations, privilege labels, client instructions, and attorney-review warnings.

Use when running a final quality gate before legal draft work product is sent, filed, relied upon, or delivered for attorney review, producing must-confirm facts, law, citations, client decisions, ethics flags, privilege flags, jurisdiction/deadline flags, and a ready-or-not-ready status.

Use when a user wants a preliminary triage of a proposed brand name, product name, or logo before engaging trademark counsel for a formal clearance search.

Use when reviewing the open-source licenses present in or proposed for a project to identify compliance obligations and flag compatibility or disclosure risks for attorney review.

Use when a user wants a structured first-pass screen of a proposed invention to assess whether it warrants patent-counsel attention, with filing-deadline urgency flagging.

Use when a client needs a first-pass, structured triage of a potential intellectual property infringement issue — identifying the key factors, flagging their direction, and routing to IP counsel — without concluding whether infringement occurred.

Use when a user needs a structured first-pass review of potential patent blocking issues for a product, process, or feature against a set of identified patents, to flag risk areas and route findings to patent counsel for a formal freedom-to-operate opinion.

Use when preparing a takedown notice for infringing content or evaluating a takedown notice received against the user's content, including whether a counter-notice may be appropriate.

Use when reviewing a tender letter, notice of claim, or additional insured or contractual indemnity tender into a completeness checklist and risk flags for attorney review.

Use when generating a legal and compliance diligence checklist for an insurance policy renewal or placement for attorney and broker review.

Use when reviewing the insurance and indemnity clauses of a contract, lease, or MSA into a source-cited requirements table and risk matrix for attorney review.