Un Claude Skill que hace triage de una citación entrante (o pedido de documentos a terceros, o requerimiento de law enforcement) — extrae el emisor, la jurisdicción, el custodio, el plazo de respuesta, las categorías de documentos solicitadas y la exposición de privilegio; clasifica si la firma tiene legitimación para objetar; estima el alcance (cantidad de custodios implicados, volumen esperado de documentos) — y produce un reporte de intake estructurado que el in-house counsel usa para dimensionar la respuesta. Reemplaza la lectura de primera mano del paralegal sobre una citación de 12 páginas con una revisión de 10 minutos de un reporte estructurado. Siempre escala a counsel; nunca responde de manera automática, nunca acepta el service de manera automática.
Cuándo usarlo
La firma recibe citaciones o requerimientos de law enforcement con una frecuencia en la que el triage del intake es por sí mismo un cuello de botella (típicamente >5 por mes).
La firma tiene un procedimiento escrito de respuesta a citaciones (counsel owners nombrados, mapa de custodios de documentos, prácticas de privilege log). El skill estructura el intake; el procedimiento es el contenido.
La firma distingue entre tipos de citaciones (civil third-party, grand jury, regulatorias, foreign legal-process) — aplican distintos caminos de objeción y timelines, y el skill necesita la rúbrica de clasificación de la firma.
Cuándo NO usarlo
Aceptar service de manera automática. Las reglas de service varían por jurisdicción; en algunas, aceptar el service dispara el reloj de respuesta. El counsel decide sobre el acknowledgement.
Reemplazar el análisis de privilegio del counsel. El skill marca exposición de privilegio (comunicaciones probablemente privilegiadas dentro del alcance, work-product doctrine implicada). El counsel hace el análisis.
Letters rogatory extranjeras o requerimientos del Hague Convention. Procedimiento distinto, timeline distinto, involucramiento de counsel distinto. El skill las marca pero no las maneja.
Citaciones de grand jury. Frecuentemente son confidenciales; el skill no debería escribir en sistemas de tracking estándar para estas — el counsel determina la postura de almacenamiento por matter.
Reemplazar la emisión de un legal hold. Una citación dispara un hold para los custodios relevantes; el skill marca el trigger pero la orquestación de litigation hold es el flujo de emisión.
Setup
Pon el bundle. Coloca apps/web/public/artifacts/subpoena-triage-claude-skill/SKILL.md en tu directorio de skills de Claude Code.
Redacta la rúbrica de clasificación de la firma. Por cada tipo de citación, documenta: quién es dueño de la respuesta, qué reglas de jurisdicción aplican, timeline por default, ruteo de counsel por default. Template en references/1-subpoena-classification.md.
Configura la fuente del mapa de custodios. El skill estima qué custodios están implicados; eso requiere un mapa actual. Sácalo del HRIS / plataforma de e-discovery / registro de legal ops.
Define las reglas de privilege flag. Cuando el alcance de una citación probablemente se superpone con comunicaciones attorney-client, el skill las marca. Las reglas de flagging varían según la firma (postura de in-house GC vs outside counsel). Template en references/2-privilege-flag-rules.md.
Haz dry-run sobre citaciones cerradas. Procesa tres citaciones cerradas. Compara la clasificación del skill, la estimación de alcance y los privilege flags contra lo que el counsel hizo realmente.
Qué hace el skill
Seis pasos. La clasificación va antes que la estimación de alcance, porque el alcance depende de qué tipo de citación es.
Extrae metadata. Emisor (corte, agencia, parte requirente), case caption, fecha de service, plazo de respuesta, jurisdicción. Se detiene si alguno de estos no puede determinarse — el counsel necesita los cinco antes de que el triage avance.
Clasifica por tipo. Civil third-party / grand jury / regulatoria (SEC, DOJ, AG estatal) / foreign legal-process / law enforcement. Según la rúbrica de la firma, rutea al counsel owner y al timeline apropiados.
Extrae las categorías de documentos solicitadas. Los pedidos de la citación suelen estar itemizados; el skill extrae cada uno y lo etiqueta con la taxonomía de categorías de documentos de la firma (contratos, comunicaciones, financieros, especificaciones técnicas, registros de HR, etc.). Marca pedidos demasiado amplios (pedidos que piden “todos los documentos relacionados con X” sin límite temporal o de alcance).
Estima implicaciones de custodios. A partir de las categorías de documentos y el contexto del matter, identifica qué custodios (personas o roles nombrados) probablemente tengan documentos responsivos. Output: lista de custodios, NO un pedido para emitir un hold (ese es el paso siguiente, aprobado por counsel).
Marca exposición de privilegio. Donde las categorías solicitadas se superponen con comunicaciones probablemente privilegiadas (asesoría legal, work product, comunicaciones de joint defense), marca con guardrail pareado (“marcado porque la categoría ‘todas las comunicaciones con counsel’ implica privilegio attorney-client; recomienda preparar privilege log como parte de la respuesta”).
Emite el reporte de triage. Markdown estructurado para el counsel + JSONL audit log por intake.
Realidad de costos
Tokens de LLM — típicamente 8-15k de input (texto del PDF de la citación + instrucciones del skill) y 2-4k de output. ~$0.10-0.20 por citación.
Tiempo de counsel / paralegal — la ganancia. El triage manual de una citación compleja toma 1-2 horas. Revisar el reporte del skill toma 15-30 minutos. El mayor ahorro de tiempo es en consistencia — cada citación pasa por la misma estructura.
Tiempo de setup — 30 minutos más la redacción de la rúbrica por firma.
Métrica de éxito
Time-to-counsel-routing — debería bajar de 4-24 horas (triage manual del paralegal en la cola) a menos de 30 minutos.
Tasa de re-clasificación del counsel — proporción de citaciones que el counsel re-clasifica después del output del skill. Debería estar por debajo de 15%; arriba de eso, la rúbrica necesita ajustes.
Cobertura de privilege flag — en revisión retrospectiva, proporción de citaciones donde efectivamente surgieron issues de privilegio vs. proporción donde el skill las marcó. Las omisiones son la señal para actualizar las reglas de privilegio.
vs alternativas
vs revisión de primera mano del paralegal. La revisión del paralegal sigue siendo la jugada correcta para las citaciones donde el juicio context-heavy importa (e.g. una citación referenciando un matter en el que el paralegal ha estado trabajando). El skill complementa en lugar de reemplazar — maneja volumen mientras los paralegals manejan matices.
vs intake de plataformas de e-discovery (Relativity, Everlaw, Logikcull). Esas manejan el lado de la ejecución de respuesta; el skill maneja el lado del triage del intake. Usa ambos.
vs counsel lee cada citación en frío. El camino más preciso; también el más lento. El skill paga su costo de setup en volumen.
Cosas para cuidar
Alucinación de citas en clasificaciones legales.Guardrail: cada clasificación cita la sección de la rúbrica de la firma; las clasificaciones sin una regla citable se marcan como “la rúbrica no cubre” en lugar de afirmarse.
Exposición de privilegio no detectada.Guardrail: las reglas de privilege flag son conservadoras — sobre-marcar antes que sub-marcar. El counsel ajusta más tarde a medida que aparecen patrones.
Implicación de acknowledgement del service.Guardrail: el skill explícitamente anota “skill procesado; service NO aceptado” en el audit log. El counsel maneja el acknowledgement.
Confidencialidad de citaciones de grand jury.Guardrail: el paso de clasificación del skill rutea las citaciones de grand jury a un destino separado con acceso restringido según el procedimiento de la firma. El counsel revisa antes de que el skill escriba a cualquier sistema de tracking estándar.
Drift en foreign legal-process.Guardrail: las letters rogatory extranjeras y los requerimientos del Hague Convention disparan un output de “el skill no puede hacer triage — escalar a counsel internacional” en lugar de mis-categorizarse como citación doméstica.
Sobre-estimación de custodios.Guardrail: la lista de custodios es un punto de partida para el counsel; las sobre-estimaciones se marcan como tales. El skill no emite holds automáticamente.
Stack
El bundle vive en apps/web/public/artifacts/subpoena-triage-claude-skill/:
SKILL.md — la definición del skill
references/1-subpoena-classification.md — rúbrica de clasificación por firma
references/2-privilege-flag-rules.md — template de reglas de privilege flag
---
name: subpoena-triage
description: Triage an incoming subpoena, third-party document request, or law-enforcement request. Extract metadata, classify by type, identify implicated custodians, flag privilege exposure, and emit a structured intake report for counsel review. Never auto-acknowledges service; never auto-issues holds; always escalates to counsel.
---
# Subpoena triage
## When to invoke
Use this skill when paralegal or legal-ops has received a subpoena (or third-party document request, or law-enforcement request) and wants a structured triage report before counsel routing.
Do NOT invoke this skill for:
- **Auto-acknowledging service** — counsel decides.
- **Foreign letters rogatory / Hague Convention requests** — different procedure; halt and escalate to international counsel.
- **Replacing counsel's privilege analysis** — the skill flags; counsel decides.
- **Issuing legal holds** — separate workflow; the skill flags but does not issue.
## Inputs
- Required: `subpoena_path` — path to the subpoena document (Markdown, plain text, or pre-extracted from PDF).
- Required: `classification_rubric` — path to the firm's classification rubric file.
- Required: `privilege_rules` — path to the firm's privilege-flag rules.
- Optional: `custodian_map` — path to a current custodian-of-record map.
## Reference files
- `references/1-subpoena-classification.md` — classification rubric template.
- `references/2-privilege-flag-rules.md` — privilege-flag rule template.
## Method
Six steps.
### 1. Extract metadata
From the subpoena document, extract:
- **Issuer** — court (with jurisdiction, division), agency name, or requesting party (with their counsel of record).
- **Case caption** — full caption including parties, case number, court.
- **Service date** — when service was effected. If unclear from the document, ask the user.
- **Response deadline** — the date by which the firm must respond. Compute from service date + the jurisdiction's response window if not stated explicitly.
- **Jurisdiction** — court's jurisdiction, governing rules (FRCP, state rules, agency rules).
If any of the five cannot be determined from the document, halt with a "metadata extraction incomplete — counsel to confirm before triage proceeds" message. Do NOT guess.
### 2. Classify by type
Per the rubric:
- **Civil third-party subpoena** — issued in litigation between two third parties; firm is a non-party witness.
- **Civil party subpoena** — firm is a party; the subpoena is from the opposing party. Different counsel ownership.
- **Grand-jury subpoena** — federal grand jury investigation. Confidential by nature; restricted handling.
- **Regulatory** — SEC, DOJ civil division, state AG, FTC, etc. Subtype by agency.
- **Foreign legal-process** — letters rogatory, Hague Convention requests, foreign agency requests. Halt and escalate.
- **Law-enforcement request** — federal or state law-enforcement; subtype by whether warrant-backed (less latitude to object) or pen-register / NSL / etc. (different latitude).
Output: classification + counsel owner per the rubric + jurisdiction-specific timeline.
### 3. Extract requested document categories
The subpoena's requests are typically itemized (Request No. 1, Request No. 2, ...). Extract each. Tag with the firm's document-category taxonomy:
- Contracts (commercial, employment, M&A)
- Communications (email, Slack, SMS, etc.)
- Financials (transactional records, accounting, tax)
- Technical specifications / source code
- HR records (personnel files, comp data)
- Marketing materials
- Other (catchall, surface to counsel for taxonomy expansion)
Flag overbroad requests:
- "All documents related to X" without temporal limit → flag for objection.
- "All communications" without scope → flag.
- Time period exceeding the relevant statute of limitations or the firm's records-retention policy → flag.
### 4. Estimate custodian implications
From document categories + matter context, identify likely custodians:
- Named individuals if the subpoena names them
- Roles likely to hold responsive material (e.g. "Communications" + "marketing campaign in 2023" → marketing team; "Contracts" + "Acme deal" → deal team + legal department)
Output: list of custodians with role + reasoning. Mark as "estimate — counsel to confirm before any hold is issued."
If `custodian_map` is provided, validate that the named custodians still hold the role. Stale roles trigger a flag.
### 5. Flag privilege exposure
Per the privilege-flag rules:
- **Attorney-client communications** — flag if requests cover communications with named counsel, in-house lawyers, or outside firms.
- **Work-product** — flag if requests cover analyses, drafts, or strategy documents prepared in anticipation of litigation.
- **Joint-defense / common-interest** — flag if the matter has joint-defense agreements covering related parties.
- **Settlement communications** (FRE 408) — flag if requests overlap with settlement discussions.
- **Other privileges** — per firm rules (clergy, marital, doctor-patient, etc.).
Each flag includes paired guard:
- "Flagging because category 'all communications with counsel' implicates attorney-client privilege; recommend privilege log preparation."
- "Flagging because category 'litigation strategy memos' implicates work-product doctrine; recommend Rule 26 work-product objection."
### 6. Emit triage report + audit log
Write the structured report. Append a JSONL audit-log line per intake — counsel needs the audit chain for matter-management.
Audit log line:
```json
{
"subpoena_id": "uuid",
"received_at": "ISO-8601",
"issuer": "...",
"classification": "civil-third-party",
"deadline": "ISO-8601",
"custodian_estimate_count": 5,
"privilege_flags": ["attorney-client", "work-product"],
"skill_version": "1.0",
"model": "claude-sonnet-4-6",
"service_acknowledged": false
}
```
The `service_acknowledged: false` is explicit — the skill never acknowledges service.
## Output format
```markdown
# Subpoena triage — {subpoena_id}
Triaged: {ISO timestamp} · Skill v1.0
⚠️ Service NOT acknowledged. Counsel handles acknowledgement.
## Metadata
- **Issuer:** {court / agency / requesting party}
- **Case caption:** {caption}
- **Service date:** {date}
- **Response deadline:** {date} ({N} days from service)
- **Jurisdiction:** {jurisdiction}
## Classification
- **Type:** {civil-third-party / grand-jury / regulatory / etc.}
- **Counsel owner (per firm rubric):** {role / name}
- **Timeline (per jurisdiction rules):** {N days standard, with motion-to-quash deadline at +{M} days}
## Requested document categories
| Request No. | Category | Scope | Flag |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Contracts | "All MSAs with Customer Acme 2020-2024" | none |
| 2 | Communications | "All communications regarding the dispute" | overbroad — no temporal limit |
| 3 | Financials | "All revenue records 2020-2024" | none |
## Custodian estimate (counsel to confirm before hold)
- Named: Jamie Liu (Acme deal owner)
- Role-based: Legal Department (privilege concerns), Finance (financials), Customer Success (Acme account)
Custodian count: 5-8 implicated.
## Privilege flags
- ⚠️ Attorney-client privilege: Request 2 covers "all communications" which implicates attorney-client communications. Recommend privilege log preparation.
- ⚠️ Work-product doctrine: Request 4's "litigation strategy memos" is core work-product. Recommend Rule 26 objection.
## Recommended actions for counsel
1. Acknowledge service per jurisdiction rules.
2. Confirm custodian list and issue litigation hold (see [litigation hold orchestration](/en/workflows/litigation-hold-orchestration-n8n/)).
3. Prepare objections per overbroad-request flags (Requests 2, 5).
4. Plan privilege-log preparation for Requests 2, 4.
5. Confirm response deadline calendar entry.
## Provenance
- Subpoena: `{path}`
- Rubric: `{path}` SHA `{short}`
- Privilege rules: `{path}` SHA `{short}`
- Audit log: `audit/2026-05.jsonl` line {N}
```
## Watch-outs
- **Citation hallucination.** *Guard:* findings cite rubric / privilege-rule sections; without citation, flagged as "rubric does not cover."
- **Privilege miss.** *Guard:* over-flag is the default posture.
- **Service implication.** *Guard:* every report and audit line includes `service_acknowledged: false`.
- **Grand-jury confidentiality.** *Guard:* grand-jury classifications route to restricted destination per firm procedure; not written to standard tracking.
- **Foreign-process miscategorization.** *Guard:* halt and escalate, not classify.
# Privilege flag rules (firm template)
The triage skill flags requests that likely overlap with privileged material. The rules are conservative — over-flag rather than under-flag, because missed privilege is harder to claw back than over-flagged scope is to negotiate.
## Privilege types covered
### Attorney-client privilege
Triggers a flag when a request covers any of:
- Communications with named in-house lawyers, by name OR by role ("legal department," "in-house counsel," "GC's office").
- Communications with named outside law firms, by name OR by role ("outside counsel," "litigation counsel," "regulatory counsel").
- "All communications" or "all email" requests where any of the firm's lawyers may be in the corpus (almost always true).
- "Legal advice on X" or "legal opinions regarding Y" requests.
Recommended response posture: privilege log preparation; assertion under FRE 502 (federal) or state equivalent.
### Work-product doctrine (Hickman v. Taylor / FRCP 26(b)(3))
Triggers a flag when a request covers any of:
- "Litigation strategy memos" or "case analysis."
- "Drafts" of pleadings, motions, briefs.
- Materials prepared "in anticipation of litigation" — the test is whether the document was prepared because of the prospect of litigation, not in the ordinary course of business.
- Investigations conducted by counsel (internal investigations).
- Counsel's notes from meetings or interviews.
Recommended response posture: Rule 26(b)(3) objection; if non-opinion work product, may produce on substantial-need showing but withhold opinion work product.
### Joint-defense / common-interest privilege
Triggers a flag when:
- The firm has joint-defense agreements covering the matter (counsel maintains the JDA registry).
- Communications cross between the firm and joint-defense counterparts about shared legal strategy.
Recommended response posture: assert with JDA cited; may need to redact or withhold depending on scope.
### Settlement communications (FRE 408)
Triggers a flag when a request covers:
- "Settlement discussions" or "negotiations to resolve."
- Communications with mediators or settlement counsel.
- Communications labeled "FRE 408" or "settlement-confidential."
Recommended response posture: object under FRE 408 (admissibility) and any applicable confidentiality agreement.
### Self-evaluation / critical analysis privilege
Limited recognition. Triggers a flag in jurisdictions that recognize it for:
- Internal audit findings (limited recognition under HHS regs for healthcare).
- Peer-review of medical care (state-by-state recognition).
- Self-critical environmental audits (limited recognition in some states).
Recommended response posture: counsel to research jurisdictional recognition before asserting.
### Other firm-specific privileges
Add per the firm's industry and jurisdiction:
- **Clergy** — for religious institutions.
- **Doctor-patient** — for healthcare providers (HIPAA also implicates).
- **Academic peer review** — for universities.
- **Trade secret** — protection from disclosure (not strictly privilege but commonly grouped).
## Flag severity
Each flag carries a severity:
- **High** — privilege is clearly implicated; assertion is the default.
- **Medium** — privilege may be implicated; counsel reviews scope.
- **Low** — privilege exposure is theoretical; counsel notes for awareness.
The triage report's privilege-flag section orders by severity.
## Per-flag guard language
Every flag in the triage output pairs with a recommended action. Sample guard language:
### Attorney-client (high)
> Request {N} covers "{quoted phrase}" which captures attorney-client communications. Recommend privilege log preparation per the firm's standard practice and assertion under FRE 502. Privilege log entries should include date, sender, recipient, subject (general), basis for privilege.
### Work-product (high)
> Request {N} covers "{quoted phrase}" which is core work product (litigation strategy / case analysis prepared because of prospect of litigation). Recommend Rule 26(b)(3) objection. Opinion work product (counsel's mental impressions) should be withheld absolutely; non-opinion work product may be produced on substantial-need showing.
### Joint-defense (medium)
> Request {N} may overlap with material covered by the joint-defense agreement with {counterpart}. Counsel to review JDA scope before producing or asserting.
### Settlement (medium)
> Request {N} covers settlement discussions in the {matter} dispute. Recommend objection under FRE 408 and any confidentiality terms in the settlement-discussion agreement.
## What the skill does NOT do
- Does NOT decide which privileges to assert (that's counsel's call).
- Does NOT prepare the privilege log (that's a separate workflow / paralegal task).
- Does NOT redact documents (that happens during production prep).
- Does NOT advise on waiver risk (counsel evaluates whether prior disclosures waived privilege).
The skill's role is to flag — comprehensively, conservatively, with paired guards — so counsel doesn't miss exposure during triage.
## Updating these rules
When the firm encounters a new privilege issue, or when a court ruling shifts the landscape:
1. Add the new trigger to the relevant section.
2. Document the citation (case law, statute, ethics opinion).
3. Set severity per counsel's assessment.
4. Bump the file's version line. Audit-log captures the SHA per triage.