# Review Document Production Set For Attorney > Reviewing a document production set for privilege designations requires applying attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine to each document, addressing any prior inadvertent production and clawback history, and producing both a privilege designation report and draft privilege log entries as separate required outputs. - Skill: `finchipaiorg/review-document-production-set-for-attorney` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add finchipaiorg/review-document-production-set-for-attorney` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/finchipaiorg/review-document-production-set-for-attorney/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Docs & Writing - Author: FinchipAIOrg (https://skillmd.com/u/finchipaiorg) - Updated: 2026-09-22 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/finchipaiorg/review-document-production-set-for-attorney --- # Skill: Review Document Production Set for Attorney-Client Privilege Designations — Privilege Log and Recommendation Memo ## 1. Subject-matter triage - Read the privilege review protocol, any clawback materials, and any existing privilege log before evaluating the production set. - Identify whether the review is document-by-document, thread-by-thread, or collection-by-collection, and use the smallest defensible unit of analysis. - Enumerate the documents or communications in scope before analysis when multiple items are present; do not collapse distinct items into one pass. - Confirm the required output files and write the substantive deliverables directly; do not stop at a summary of what would be logged. ## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting - Reviewing for privilege without first reading the governing review protocol and any matter-specific instructions. - Ignoring prior inadvertent production, clawback history, or other nonwaiver protection that affects the waiver analysis. - Treating any lawyer involvement as automatic privilege without checking confidence, legal-advice purpose, and the communication’s actual audience. - Missing that collaboration-platform messages, emails, attachments, and notes often require different privilege treatment even within the same thread or packet. - Assuming an outside counsel opinion letter is privileged without verifying confidentiality and legal-advice purpose. - Failing to separate mixed legal-business material and overdesignating entire documents when redaction would preserve nonprivileged content. - Drafting a privilege log entry that is too vague to reveal the basis for withholding while still avoiding disclosure of privileged substance. - Misstating whether the document is withheld in full, redacted, or partially privileged. - Omitting the practical consequence of the designation for production, logging, and any clawback handling. ## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply - Attorney-client privilege generally requires a confidential communication between attorney and client made for the purpose of seeking or rendering legal advice; the privilege protects the communication, not underlying facts. - Work product doctrine protects materials prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial, including materials prepared at the direction of counsel; opinion work product receives stronger protection than fact work product. - Dual-purpose communications require attention to whether the dominant purpose is legal advice or litigation preparation, versus business or operational decision-making. - Communications involving counsel’s agents may be privileged if the agent’s role is to facilitate legal advice rather than provide an independent business service. - Inadvertent production does not necessarily waive privilege if a clawback agreement, protective order, or similar nonwaiver arrangement applies; waiver analysis must follow the governing order and applicable privilege rules. - Privilege may be lost if the communication was shared broadly, copied unnecessarily, or used for nonlegal business purposes inconsistent with confidentiality. - Draft privilege logs should give enough information to permit challenge without revealing the privileged advice itself; use the standard fields normally expected in litigation practice. - For redacted documents, the log and report should distinguish redaction from total withholding and identify the general category of withheld material. ## 4. Analytical scaffolds - Start with the review protocol and any clawback materials, then the existing log, then the document set. - For each document or communication: - identify the date, author, recipient(s), and document type; - determine whether an attorney was involved and in what role; - assess whether the communication was confidential; - determine whether the dominant purpose was legal advice, litigation preparation, or ordinary business activity; - assess whether the item is privileged, work product, partially privileged, redactable, or not privileged; - check whether any prior production or clawback history changes the analysis. - For thread-based communications, evaluate each message or attachment separately; one privileged request does not make every response privileged. - For mixed-purpose documents, ask whether the privileged portion can be separated cleanly from nonprivileged material. - For any lawyer-authored opinion or advice document, verify the client relationship, confidentiality, and legal-advice purpose before designating it privileged. - For any nonlawyer notes, summaries, or materials created at counsel’s direction, assess whether they were prepared because of anticipated litigation and whether they reflect counsel’s strategy or mental impressions. - Tie each designation to a defensible legal basis and to the practical production consequence: withhold, redact, produce, or log. ## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships - Treat prior inadvertent productions as a temporal overlay on the current review; later documents in the same chain may be affected by the same waiver or nonwaiver rules. - Track the relationship among emails, attachments, forwarded messages, and embedded comments; privilege may attach to one component but not another. - Preserve hierarchy: an attachment sent with an otherwise privileged email is not privileged merely by association, and an attachment can be privileged even if the cover email is not. - Where a document reflects both legal and business guidance, identify which portion controls the designation and whether partial redaction is the narrower reasonable approach. ## 6. Output structure conventions - Produce two files exactly as named in the task instructions. - Privilege designation report: - one row or entry per document or communication; - include document identifier, date, author, recipient(s), designation, concise basis, and production consequence; - use clear labels such as privileged, work product, partially privileged/redact, or not privileged. - Draft privilege log entries: - use a conventional log format with date, author, recipient(s), general description, privilege type, and basis; - describe the substance at a high level without revealing the privileged advice or litigation strategy; - separate entries for distinct documents, attachments, or messages when their privilege treatment differs. - Keep the report and the log consistent with each other and with the underlying review conclusions. - Before finishing, confirm by file name that both deliverables exist and contain operative entries, not merely headings or explanatory text.