Legal Hold Uk Agents

---
name: legal-hold-uk-agents
title: /legal-hold
description: Issue, refresh, release, or report on preservation notices — drafts the notice as .docx, updates legal_hold fields in _log.yaml, and calendars the next refresh. Use when the user says "issue a preservation notice", "refresh hold", "release hold", or asks for a portfolio-wide hold status report.
author: uk-agents
author_url: https://github.com/uk-agents/uk-legal-plugins/tree/main/litigation-legal-uk/skills/legal-hold
license: Apache-2.0
version: 0.1.0
execution_mode: open
jurisdiction: gb
practice: litigation
language: en
---

# /legal-hold

1. If `--status` (no slug): read `_log.yaml`, produce portfolio-wide hold report.
2. Otherwise: load `~/.claude/plugins/config/uk-legal-plugins/litigation-legal-uk/matters/[slug]/matter.md` + log row.
3. Load `~/.claude/plugins/config/uk-legal-plugins/litigation-legal-uk/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 `preservation-notice-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.

---

# Legal Hold / Preservation Notice

## Purpose

A preservation notice is the most mechanical high-stakes document in-house counsel writes. The notice itself is templated. The failure modes are operational: issued too late, scoped too narrowly, never refreshed, never released. This skill owns all four phases: **issue → refresh → (release) → track**.

The portfolio already flags missing holds; this skill writes them.

## Jurisdiction assumption

Preservation duties under English law derive primarily from common law (the duty to preserve relevant documents once litigation is reasonably anticipated) as well as from the court's procedural powers under CPR Part 31 and CPR Part 51U (extended disclosure in Business and Property Courts). The trigger, scope, and sanctions exposure cited in the draft are a starting-point read for the forum named in the matter:

- **England & Wales:** duty arises when litigation is reasonably anticipated; scope is documents relevant to the issues in the anticipated litigation; sanctions for breach include adverse inferences, specific disclosure orders, and wasted costs orders.
- **Scotland:** equivalent obligations under Rules of the Court of Session / Sheriff Court Rules. The trigger and scope are similar to English common law but the procedural framework differs. Flag for Scottish solicitors on any Scotland-domiciled matter.
- **Northern Ireland:** similar to England & Wales under Rules of the Court of Judicature (NI).
- **Regulatory matters:** regulatory preservation obligations may overlay civil rules (FCA, ICO, CMA, etc.). Confirm the applicable regime with external solicitors before issuing.

Confirm with counsel before issuing, refreshing, or releasing.

## Load context

- `~/.claude/plugins/config/uk-legal-plugins/litigation-legal-uk/matters/_log.yaml` — log row (legal_hold fields + status)
- `~/.claude/plugins/config/uk-legal-plugins/litigation-legal-uk/matters/[slug]/matter.md` — matter context (counterparty, facts, key custodians from internal_owners)
- `~/.claude/plugins/config/uk-legal-plugins/litigation-legal-uk/CLAUDE.md` — house style for preservation notice template pointer, privilege marking, escalation norms

**Conflicts gate — unbypassable.** Before issuing, refreshing, or releasing a hold, check `_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-uk:matter-intake` first so the conflicts check runs and the matter workspace is set up. I won't issue, refresh, or release a preservation notice on a matter that hasn't been intaken — the conflicts check is the gate, and a notice issued against an unmanaged matter has no `_log.yaml` row to track `last_refresh` / `next_refresh` / `released` against."

## Modes

The command takes a flag: `--issue | --refresh | --release | --status`. Default (no flag) → prompt.

### `--issue` — first issuance

Required when `legal_hold.issued == false` and the matter is active or litigation is reasonably anticipated.

**Before issuing the notice to custodians (the consequential act):** Read `## Who's using this` in `~/.claude/plugins/config/uk-legal-plugins/litigation-legal-uk/CLAUDE.md`. If the Role is Non-lawyer:

> Issuing a preservation notice has legal consequences — the scope, custodian list, and timing create the preservation record the company will be judged on if a failure to preserve is argued later. Have you reviewed this with a solicitor or barrister? 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 preservation obligation researched, known exposure, what could go wrong (too broad / too narrow), what to ask the solicitor/barrister.]
>
> If you need to find a licensed solicitor, barrister, or other authorised legal professional: the SRA (solicitors.lawsociety.org.uk) or Bar Standards Board (barstandardsboard.org.uk/find-a-barrister) for England & Wales; the Law Society of Scotland (lawscot.org.uk) for Scotland; the Law Society of Northern Ireland (lawsoc-ni.org) for Northern Ireland.

Do not send the notice without an explicit yes. Drafting and scoping do not require the gate — issuance does.

**Research the applicable preservation obligation before issuing.** Identify the jurisdiction and the source of the preservation duty (common law duty arising on reasonable anticipation of litigation, CPR Part 31, CPR PD 51U extended disclosure, regulatory preservation obligation, contractual). Confirm the currently operative trigger standard, scope standard, and sanctions exposure. Cite primary sources. If uncertain, get external solicitors' sign-off before issuing.

> **External deliverable:** the notice below is sent to custodians. Do NOT include a `PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL — LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE` header on the outgoing notice; use the attorney-client / litigation privilege marking in the template. Confirm the correct marking for your matter.

**Inputs:**
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 = failure-to-preserve 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, Teams/Slack, file shares, devices (including personal devices used for business), Jira/Asana, CRM, legacy systems.
5. **Urgency** — if proceedings already served or demand received with threat of proceedings, this goes out today.
6. **Effective date** — date of the notice.

**Draft the notice** to each custodian, using the house template in `~/.claude/plugins/config/uk-legal-plugins/litigation-legal-uk/CLAUDE.md` if one is configured; otherwise the default template below.

**Default preservation notice template:**

```
[PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL — LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE — LITIGATION PRIVILEGE]

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

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

EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, you must preserve:

1. All documents, emails, text messages, Teams/Slack 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)
- Teams / Slack / messaging platforms
- Shared drives and cloud storage
- Personal devices used for company business
- Paper documents
- Voicemails
- Calendar entries and meeting notes

DO NOT:
- Delete, modify, destroy, or dispose of any potentially responsive material
- Allow any document, email, or message to be deleted under any automated
  deletion or retention policy

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 proceedings, 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]
```

**Send gate (closing note on the draft):** Append to the in-chat preview of the notice — stripped before the notice goes to custodians:

> This is a draft preservation notice for solicitor/barrister review, not a notice ready to issue. Issuing a notice triggers preservation obligations the company will be judged on in any later failure-to-preserve argument, and the notice itself may be disclosable. A licensed solicitor or barrister reviews, approves, and issues. Do not distribute this draft unreviewed.

**Writes:**
- `~/.claude/plugins/config/uk-legal-plugins/litigation-legal-uk/matters/[slug]/preservation-notice-v1.docx` via the `docx` skill
- Appends to `~/.claude/plugins/config/uk-legal-plugins/litigation-legal-uk/matters/[slug]/history.md`:
  ```
  ## [YYYY-MM-DD] — Preservation notice issued

  Notice 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
  ```

### `--refresh` — periodic reaffirmation

Refresh cadence: default 6 months; adjustable per matter. When `next_refresh < today` (or user invokes manually), the skill drafts a refresh notice.

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

**Refresh notice template:** similar to issuance; opens with "This is a reaffirmation of the preservation notice originally issued [date]." Lists current scope (amended if needed). Requests re-acknowledgment.

**Departed custodians:** if a custodian has left the company since last refresh, the skill flags this as a preservation action item — the departing employee's files and email archive need to be preserved at IT level, not just via notice to the individual. Records this in history.md as a separate entry requiring action.

**Writes:**
- `~/.claude/plugins/config/uk-legal-plugins/litigation-legal-uk/matters/[slug]/preservation-notice-v[N].docx` (next version number)
- `history.md` entry
- `_log.yaml`: updates `last_refresh` and `next_refresh` fields; modifies `custodians` list if changed

### `--release` — close the hold

Usually at matter close. Confirm the matter is truly over (not on appeal, not likely to reopen, limitation period passed on related claims, all obligations satisfied).

**Before releasing the hold (the consequential act — preservation obligations resume normal retention):** Read `## Who's using this` in `~/.claude/plugins/config/uk-legal-plugins/litigation-legal-uk/CLAUDE.md`. If the Role is Non-lawyer:

> Releasing a preservation notice has legal consequences — once released, custodians may resume normal deletion under retention policies. Release at the wrong time creates exposure. Have you reviewed this with a solicitor or barrister? 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 / limitation exposure, custodian impact, what could go wrong, what to ask the solicitor/barrister.]
>
> If you need to find a licensed solicitor, barrister, or other authorised legal professional: the SRA (solicitors.lawsociety.org.uk) or Bar Standards Board (barstandardsboard.org.uk/find-a-barrister) for England & Wales; the Law Society of Scotland (lawscot.org.uk) for Scotland; the Law Society of Northern Ireland (lawsoc-ni.org) for Northern Ireland.

Do not send the release notice without an explicit yes.

**Inputs:**
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?)

**Release notice template:** one paragraph, formal. "The preservation notice issued [date] regarding [matter] is released effective [date]. Normal document retention and deletion policies may resume."

**Writes:**
- `~/.claude/plugins/config/uk-legal-plugins/litigation-legal-uk/matters/[slug]/preservation-notice-release.docx`
- `history.md` entry
- `_log.yaml`: sets `released: [YYYY-MM-DD]`

### `--status` — report across the portfolio

Read `_log.yaml`. Produce a report:

```markdown
# Preservation Notice Status — [today]

## Active notices

| Matter | Issued | Last refresh | Next refresh | Custodians | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [slug] | [date] | [date] | [date] | [N] | [ok / ⚠️ refresh due / ❌ overdue] |

## ⚠️ Attention

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

## Recently released

[last 5 released notices with dates]
```

This is a separate command invocation (`/legal-hold --status` with no slug) OR invoked by `/portfolio-status` as a section in the portfolio rollup.

## Integration with portfolio-status

The `portfolio-status` skill already flags "Hold not issued on active litigation." This skill is what resolves those flags. Worth cross-referencing in the briefing when a matter is opened: if `legal_hold.issued == false`, `/matter-intake` closes by offering to run `/legal-hold --issue`.

## What this skill does not do

- **Enforce preservation.** It issues the notice; IT/custodians preserve. The skill flags when a custodian departs (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 = failure-to-preserve 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 MCP could send directly after user review.)