# Draft Leniency Application > Closes gaps in complete proffer content including coordination event specificity, affected-commerce calculation methodology, Type A condition analysis, and individual participant identification. - Skill: `finchipaiorg/draft-leniency-application` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add finchipaiorg/draft-leniency-application` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/finchipaiorg/draft-leniency-application/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: FinchipAIOrg (https://skillmd.com/u/finchipaiorg) - Updated: 2026-09-22 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/finchipaiorg/draft-leniency-application --- # Skill: DOJ Leniency Application Drafting ## 1. Subject-matter triage - This is a dual-draft task: prepare the primary leniency application first, then the separate advisory memorandum. - Treat the application as the operative filing; do not let the memo substitute for missing proffer facts, condition analysis, or cooperation commitments. - If the record reveals multiple restraints, participants, time periods, or customer groups, enumerate them before analysis and address each on its own terms. - Use only the facts supported by the investigation materials; do not invent dates, actors, commerce figures, or escalation facts. ## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting - The draft omits the corporate applicant’s identity, making the filing less usable for DOJ intake and follow-up. - The draft collapses the Type I analysis into a generic cooperation statement instead of walking through each required condition separately. - The draft describes anticompetitive conduct at a high level but fails to identify the coordination events, participants, and scope with enough specificity for a reviewing attorney to assess value. - The draft fails to identify individual participants by name, title, and role, which impairs cooperation planning and internal accountability. - The draft omits the affected-commerce methodology or treats it as an unsupported conclusion rather than a calculable business exposure. - The memo is missing, merged into the application, or written without practical recommendations tied to timing and responsibility. ## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply - DOJ Antitrust Division corporate leniency principles govern the application; distinguish automatic treatment for a first-in applicant from discretionary treatment if first-in status is uncertain or prior government awareness may exist. - Address the core leniency conditions separately and expressly: absence of prior government knowledge, prompt reporting and termination, no coercion or leader-driven conduct, full/continuous/complete cooperation, and restitution or remediation where reasonably possible. - Frame the factual proffer to satisfy the reviewing standard for usefulness: state the restraint, the relevant time frame, the affected business lines or customer categories, and the coordination mechanisms used. - Where commerce exposure is discussed, tie the narrative to the method used to identify affected sales, volume, or transactions during the relevant period; do not present a naked figure without methodology. - Individual accountability analysis should distinguish corporate cooperation commitments from any separate individual-cooperation issues, privilege concerns, and interview strategy. - Every legal proposition should be anchored to the governing authority or recognized DOJ leniency practice supporting it; do not state a conclusion without naming the rule, doctrine, or program principle that supports it. ## 4. Analytical scaffolds 1. Identify the applicant - State legal entity name, jurisdiction of incorporation, principal place of business, and any relevant organizational identifier if available. - If the applicant is part of a broader group, identify the filing entity and describe the relationship to any relevant business unit in plain terms. 2. Determine the leniency posture - State whether the record supports first-in treatment or whether the file must hedge for potential discretionary consideration. - Analyze each eligibility condition separately and note any factual uncertainty that should be flagged to General Counsel. 3. Build the proffer chronologically - Nature of the violation: price fixing, customer allocation, bid rigging, or a combination. - Time period: identify start and end points for each restraint and note any gaps or phase changes. - Geographic and customer scope: identify the markets, regions, customer types, or procurement channels affected. - Coordination events: for each meeting, call, text thread, or other communication, capture date, participants, venue or channel, and subject matter. - Coordinated acts: identify pricing moves, customer assignments, bid submissions, quota understandings, or retaliation steps and link each to the triggering discussion if known. 4. Identify the human actors - List each known participant by name, title, business role, and role in the conduct. - Separate decision-makers, facilitators, attendees, and implementers. - Flag any individual whose role appears leadership-oriented, coercive, or isolated from the central agreement. 5. Analyze affected commerce - State the methodology used to isolate affected sales or transactions. - Identify the period covered, the product or service universe, and any exclusions. - If the source material supports an allocation across multiple business lines or periods, analyze each segment separately before summarizing. 6. Draft the cooperation and remediation commitments - Commit to preserving documents, making witnesses available, and continuing internal investigation support. - Include any restitution or remedial commitment where the facts show a realistic path to doing so. - Note any privilege-sensitive steps that need coordination with outside counsel before production or interviews. 7. Prepare the advisory memorandum - Address strategic timing, preservation, employee interviews, individual exposure management, and open factual gaps. - End with concrete recommendations tied to responsible roles and near-term milestones. ## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships - Track the sequence from inception, to coordination, to implementation, to discovery, to reporting; the order matters for leniency posture and witness management. - Distinguish between conduct that establishes the conspiracy and conduct that merely follows it, because post-agreement implementation may affect both culpability and cooperation strategy. - If the investigation spans more than one campaign, product line, or customer set, treat each as a separate strand before combining them into a single narrative. - When multiple participants or communications exist, identify who initiated, who reinforced, who implemented, and who may have withdrawn or resisted; this affects the cooperation story. ## 6. Output structure conventions ### Deliverable 1 — Leniency Application - Use a professional application format with a clear applicant identification section up front. - Include a dedicated section for leniency-condition analysis, with each condition addressed in separate prose or subheadings. - Follow with a factual proffer in chronological order, then a section on affected commerce and calculation method, then a cooperation/remediation commitment section. - Keep the application factual and persuasive; avoid internal legal speculation that is better reserved for the memo. ### Deliverable 2 — Advisory Memorandum to General Counsel - Use a conventional internal memorandum format with issue framing, risk analysis, and recommendations. - Cover timing risk, first-in uncertainty, employee and individual exposure, preservation and interview sequencing, and privilege-management considerations. - Close with a recommended actions section that assigns responsibility and timing to each recommendation. - Make the memo decision-oriented: it should tell General Counsel what to do next, by whom, and when.