Draft Proffer Agreement

---
name: draft-proffer-agreement-cooperating-witness
task_id: white-collar-defense-investigations/draft-proffer-agreement
description: Proffer agreement and accompanying cover memorandum for a cooperating witness in a federal investigation, covering direct use protection, derivative use risk analysis, false statement exposure, and the strategic framework for deciding whether to proffer.
activates_for: [planner, solver, checker]
---

# Skill: Draft Proffer Agreement and Cover Memorandum — Cooperating Witness

## 1. Subject-matter triage

- Treat this as a two-document drafting task: the proffer agreement is the primary deliverable, and the cover memorandum is secondary.
- Draft the agreement first, confirm it is complete and usable, then draft the memo as the client-facing explanation of the deal’s practical effect.
- Identify all participants and procedural facts from the source file set before drafting: client, defense counsel, government attorney, session date, and session location.
- If the source materials contain only one proffer session, say so and draft to that single session; if more than one, address each separately.

## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting

- The agreement is treated as a generic cooperation letter rather than a precise proffer arrangement with defined session terms, signatories, and protection boundaries.
- The cover memorandum blurs direct-use protection, derivative-use risk, and immunity, creating the false impression that a proffer session is broad testimonial protection.
- The memo understates the central strategic risk: the government may still use the proffer as a roadmap to witnesses, documents, and investigative leads even if it cannot use the statement itself at trial.
- False-statement exposure is minimized or omitted; the client is not warned that incompleteness, evasion, or minimization can destroy the practical value of the session and create independent exposure.
- The draft fails to present a decision framework that helps the client weigh cooperation credit against the risk of educating the government without securing equivalent protection.
- The agreement omits standard carveouts for false statements, inconsistent testimony, and material breach.
- The deliverables are written as summaries of what should happen instead of operative documents that can be signed and used.

## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply

- A proffer agreement is typically a letter agreement from the government to defense counsel, countersigned by the witness and defense counsel.
- The agreement should state the session details and define what statements are covered.
- Standard proffer protection is narrow: it usually bars direct use of the statements in the government’s case-in-chief, but it is not the same as transactional immunity or full use-and-derivative-use immunity.
- A formal immunity grant is governed by 18 U.S.C. §§ 6002–6003 and is distinct from a standard proffer agreement.
- Federal false-statement exposure may arise under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 when a witness makes materially false statements in a federal matter, even in an informal proffer setting.
- If the witness later testifies inconsistently, the government may preserve impeachment, rebuttal, or breach-based arguments as provided by the agreement and applicable evidentiary rules.
- The agreement should track the practical custom of federal white-collar practice: concise protection language, express exceptions, and signature blocks in the expected order.
- The memorandum should reflect attorney-client privilege and should not read like a negotiation letter to the government.

## 4. Analytical scaffolds

1. **Session facts**: Confirm who attended, where the proffer occurred or will occur, and when it occurred or will occur.
2. **Agreement mechanics**: Ensure the letter memorializes the covered session and the parties bound by it.
3. **Protection scope**: State precisely what the government may not do with proffer statements, using direct-use language that matches the source template where possible.
4. **Carveouts**: Include standard exceptions for false statements, inconsistent testimony, breach, or other express conditions from the source materials.
5. **Derivative-use explanation**: In the memo, explain in plain English that the main risk is not just direct use at trial but the government’s ability to use the proffer as a lead generator.
6. **Immunity distinction**: Make clear that broader use/derivative-use immunity comes only through a formal immunity process, not by assumption.
7. **False-statement warning**: Advise that truthfulness must be complete and careful; avoid any suggestion that selective disclosure is safe.
8. **Decision framework**: Balance the possible benefits of proffering against the risk of revealing defense information before knowing whether cooperation will be credited.

## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships

- Put the government’s protection promise first, then the express exceptions, then the signature blocks.
- If the source materials reflect a sequence, describe it in time order: investigation posture, decision to proffer, session, potential follow-up, and any later testimony or breach consequences.
- Tie the memo’s advice to the immediate decision point: whether to enter the session at all under the actual protection offered.
- When multiple statements or sessions are involved, distinguish what is covered now from what may arise later under inconsistent testimony or breach scenarios.

## 6. Output structure conventions

- Deliver two separate .docx documents: the signed-form proffer agreement and the privileged cover memorandum.
- The proffer agreement should be in formal letter format, beginning with counsel-facing salutation and ending with signature blocks for the government attorney, the client, and defense counsel.
- The agreement must be operative, not explanatory; include the session identification and the protection/exceptions language in draft contract form.
- The cover memorandum should be addressed to the client, identify the legal effect of the agreement, and explain the practical risks and benefits in plain language.
- Use controlled legal citations for propositions relied on: cite 18 U.S.C. §§ 6002–6003 for immunity, 18 U.S.C. § 1001 for false statements, and any other authority relied on by the source materials or governing federal practice.
- Keep the memorandum balanced and decision-oriented; do not advocate for proffering without first stating the limits of the protection actually being offered.
- Before finishing, confirm in the draft that the agreement file is complete and contains operative clauses, and that the memo follows only after the agreement is drafted.