Legal Hold

Codex v1 local-input note: This migrated skill supports local files and pasted text by default. References to Drive, CLM IDs, Slack, Westlaw, iManage, Ironclad, eDiscovery, dockets, or other remote systems require a separately configured Codex connector/MCP server. When a connector is unavailable, ask for a local export, local file path, or pasted excerpts. If config/local/codex-for-legal/<practice>/CLAUDE.md is missing, ask the user to run the relevant cold-start-interview or customize skill and copy from config/templates/codex-for-legal/<practice>/CLAUDE.md.

$litigation-legal:legal-hold

1. If --status (no slug): read _log.yaml, produce portfolio-wide hold report.
2. Otherwise: load config/local/codex-for-legal/litigation-legal/matters/[slug]/matter.md + log row.
3. Load config/local/codex-for-legal/litigation-legal/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 legal-hold-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

Purpose

A legal hold 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 vary materially by forum. Federal common law (via Zubulake / Residential Funding / Rule 37(e)) differs from state practice; states differ from each other on trigger timing, scope, sanctions, and spoliation remedies; regulatory preservation obligations overlay civil rules in some matters (SEC Rule 17a-4, HIPAA, etc.). The trigger, scope, and sanctions exposure cited in the draft are a starting-point read for the forum named in the matter — confirm with counsel before issuing, refreshing, or releasing.

Load context

• config/local/codex-for-legal/litigation-legal/matters/_log.yaml — log row (legal_hold fields + status)
• config/local/codex-for-legal/litigation-legal/matters/[slug]/matter.md — matter context (counterparty, facts, key custodians from internal_owners)
• config/local/codex-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md — house style for litigation hold 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:matter-intake first so the conflicts check runs and the matter workspace is set up. I won't issue, refresh, or release a legal hold on a matter that hasn't been intaken — the conflicts check is the gate, and a hold issued against an unmanaged matter has no _log.yaml row to track last_refresh / next_refresh / released against."

Do not proceed on an unintaken matter. Intake is what runs conflicts and writes the _log.yaml row the --refresh / --release / --status flags operate 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 reasonably anticipated.

Before issuing the hold to custodians (the consequential act): Read ## Who's using this in config/local/codex-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md. If the Role is Non-lawyer:

Issuing a legal hold has legal consequences — the scope, custodian list, and timing create the preservation record the company will be judged on if spoliation is argued later. Have you reviewed this with an attorney? 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 forum-specific preservation rule researched, known spoliation exposure, what could go wrong (too broad / too narrow), what to ask the attorney.]

If you need to find a licensed attorney, solicitor, barrister, or other authorised legal professional in your jurisdiction: your professional regulator's referral service is the fastest starting point (state bar in the US, SRA/Bar Standards Board in England & Wales, Law Society in Scotland/NI/Ireland/Canada/Australia, or your jurisdiction's equivalent).

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

Research the applicable preservation rule before issuing. Identify the jurisdiction and the source of the preservation duty (common law, rule of civil procedure, regulatory preservation obligation, contractual). Confirm the currently operative trigger standard (when the duty attaches), scope standard (what must be preserved), and sanctions exposure (spoliation doctrine for the forum). Cite primary sources. Note that federal and state law can differ materially on trigger timing, scope, and remedy — flag the forum you're relying on. If uncertain, say so and get outside-counsel sign-off before issuing.

External deliverable: the notice below is sent to custodians. Do NOT include a PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT — PREPARED AT THE DIRECTION OF COUNSEL header on the outgoing notice; use the attorney-client marking in the template. Confirm the correct marking for your jurisdiction and 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 = spoliation 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, Slack (connector optional; not enabled in v1)/Teams, file shares, devices (including BYOD if applicable), Jira/Asana, CRM, legacy systems.
5. Urgency — if litigation already served or demand received with threat of suit, this goes out today.
6. Effective date — date of the hold.

Draft the notice to each custodian, using the house template in config/local/codex-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md if one is configured; otherwise the default template below.

Default hold notice template:

[PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION]

DATE: [effective date]
TO: [custodian name]
FROM: [signer — per `config/local/codex-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md` default]
RE: LITIGATION HOLD NOTICE — [matter short name]

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

EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, you must preserve:

1. All documents, emails, text messages, Slack (connector optional; not enabled in v1)/Teams 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)
- Slack (connector optional; not enabled in v1)/Teams/messaging platforms
- Shared drives and cloud storage
- Personal devices used for company business (BYOD)
- Paper documents
- Voicemails
- Calendar entries and meeting notes

DO NOT:
- Delete, modify, destroy, or dispose of any potentially responsive material
- Auto-delete or "Inbox Zero" any email or messaging

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 litigation, 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 legal hold notice for attorney review, not a notice ready to issue. Issuing a hold triggers preservation obligations the company will be judged on in any later spoliation argument, and the notice itself may be discoverable. A licensed attorney reviews, approves, and issues. Do not distribute this draft unreviewed.

Writes:

• config/local/codex-for-legal/litigation-legal/matters/[slug]/legal-hold-v1.docx via the docx skill
• Appends to config/local/codex-for-legal/litigation-legal/matters/[slug]/history.md:

  ## [YYYY-MM-DD] — Legal hold issued
  
  Hold issued to [N] custodians: [list].
  Scope: [one-line summary].
  Next refresh: [YYYY-MM-DD (default issued + 6 months)].
  

• Updates _log.yaml row:

  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 discovery, new custodians, new systems).
2. Any custodians to add or remove (departures need special handling — see below).
3. Re-confirmation language.

Refresh notice template: similar to issuance; opens with "This is a reaffirmation of the legal hold 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:

• config/local/codex-for-legal/litigation-legal/matters/[slug]/legal-hold-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, statute of limitations passed on related claims).

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

Releasing a legal hold has legal consequences — once released, custodians may begin deleting material. Release at the wrong time creates spoliation exposure. Have you reviewed this with an attorney? 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 / SOL exposure, custodian impact, what could go wrong, what to ask the attorney.]

If you need to find a licensed attorney, solicitor, barrister, or other authorised legal professional in your jurisdiction: your professional regulator's referral service is the fastest starting point (state bar in the US, SRA/Bar Standards Board in England & Wales, Law Society in Scotland/NI/Ireland/Canada/Australia, or your jurisdiction's equivalent).

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 litigation hold issued [date] regarding [matter] is released effective [date]. Normal retention resumes."

Writes:

• config/local/codex-for-legal/litigation-legal/matters/[slug]/legal-hold-release.docx
• history.md entry
• _log.yaml: sets released: [YYYY-MM-DD]

--status — report across the portfolio

Read _log.yaml. Produce a report:

# Legal Hold Status — [today]

## Active holds

| 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 hold issued:** [list — high/critical risk first]
- **Matters closed with hold still active:** [list — consider release]

## Recently released

[last 5 released holds with dates]

This is a separate command invocation ($litigation-legal:legal-hold --status with no slug) OR invoked by $litigation-legal: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, $litigation-legal:matter-intake closes by offering to run $litigation-legal:legal-hold --issue.

What this skill does not do

• Enforce preservation. It issues the notice; IT/custodians preserve. The skill flags when a custodian leaves (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 = spoliation 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/O365 MCP could send directly after user review.)