Litigation legal-AI skills in General

253 legal AI skills for litigation in General.

Oc status

Apache-2.0GeneralLitigation

为活跃案件组合中的各外聘律师生成每周状态请求邮件草稿—— 每案一份 markdown。当用户要求向外聘律师发状态请求、 每周外聘律师检查或需要从案件组合日志中起草各案状态邮件时使用。

Oc status

Apache-2.0GeneralLitigation

Generate weekly status-request email drafts to outside counsel across the active portfolio — markdown per matter, plus Gmail drafts when the MCP is available. Use when the user asks for OC status requests, weekly outside counsel check-ins, or wants per-matter status emails drafted from the portfolio log.

OC Status

MITGeneralLitigation

Generate weekly status-request email drafts to outside counsel across the active portfolio — markdown per matter, plus Gmail drafts when the MCP is available.

/oc-status (Dış Hukuk Bürosu Safahat Durumu)

Apache-2.0GeneralLitigation

Tüm aktif portföydeki dış hukuk bürolarına gönderilmek üzere haftalık/aylık durum (safahat) talep e-postası taslakları oluşturur — her dosya için markdown formatında ve (eğer MCP aktifse) Gmail taslağı olarak. Kullanıcı "dış bürolardan safahat iste", "haftalık raporları hazırla" veya portföy günlüğünden (log) dosya bazlı e-posta taslakları istediğinde kullanın.

Operational Creditor Application Drafter

MITGeneralLitigation

Tests and drafts an Indian operational creditor demand and section 9 IBC application. Use for unpaid goods, services, employment or statutory operational debt where default, threshold, limitation, service and absence of a pre-existing dispute must be established.

Opposing Counsel: Adversarial Argument Analysis

Apache-2.0GeneralLitigation

Act as experienced opposing counsel to attack, undermine, and expose weaknesses in a legal argument, submission, witness statement, or structured reasoning. Produces a six-part adversarial analysis: 1. A core theory of attack identifying the single most effective way to defeat the argument; 2. A reconstructed version of the opposing argument stripped of rhetoric to expose its fragility; 3. Primary lines of attack grouped by category (legal misstatement, evidential gaps, causation failures, internal inconsistency, over-reliance on assertion, procedural weakness); 4. An "if I were the judge" section showing how a sceptical tribunal would dismantle the argument; 5. Surgical strikes - 3 to 5 high-impact points ready for oral submissions; and 6. An analysis of what the argument is trying to hide. Written in formal, adversarial British English for a legally trained audience.

Opposing Counsel Attack EN - single-pass litigation sparring

MITGeneralLitigation

Single-pass opposing counsel attack on a legal argument - takes on the role of experienced counsel for the other side who has been handed your submission and told "find every way to beat this". Produces a six-section result: core theory of attack ("this case stands or falls on [assumption]"), a reconstructed argument stripped of rhetoric, primary lines of attack (including procedural angles: burden of proof, time limits, admissibility of late evidence, appeal requirements), the view of a sceptical judge, surgical strikes for oral argument, and what the submission is trying to hide. Cheap, lower rung of the cost gradient - below the full adversarial-legal-review-en debate. Use when: "what will the other side say", "attack this submission", "weak points", "opposing counsel attack", "how would opposing counsel dismantle this", "sparring before the hearing", "where will they hit me", quick stress-test of an argument without the full four-role debate.

Opposing Counsel Simulator — Build the Other Side's Playbook

MITGeneralLitigation

Use when an attorney wants to model opposing counsel's strategy, predict their likely motions and tactical moves, understand their settlement posture, and build a playbook to pre-empt attacks. Calibrated by firm reputation, counsel personality, and case type. Covers aggressive, collaborative, and dilatory strategies; likely motions (MTD, MSJ, discovery disputes); forum-shopping and parallel proceedings. Output is a structured opposing-counsel playbook for negotiation leverage, settlement strategy, and hearing preparation.

Outcome Probability Estimator — Probabilistic Litigation Assessment

MITGeneralLitigation

Use when an attorney or client needs a structured probabilistic assessment of likely litigation outcomes — estimating P(win on liability) and a damage range to derive an expected award, adjusted for jurisdiction, judge or tribunal characteristics, appeal probability, and loser-pays cost rules. Produces probability-weighted scenarios at 50th, 75th, and 90th percentile confidence levels with reasoned ranges (not single-point estimates). Always paired with the settlement EV calculator for client counseling. Always disclaimed as an estimate, not a guarantee.

packet-builder

Apache-2.0GeneralLitigation

Interactive complaint-packet assembly driven by packet-manifest.yaml — walks through authority, exhibit list, reference appendices, and runs scripts/packet/build.py. Triggers when the user says "build the packet" or when a complaint narrative and exhibit set are ready to compile.

Plaint Drafter

MITGeneralLitigation

Drafts an Indian civil or commercial plaint from verified facts, causes of action, jurisdiction, limitation, valuation, court-fee and relief instructions. Use for a new civil suit where the claimant's pleadings, documents and procedural prerequisites must be assembled. Do not use for arbitration claims, consumer complaints, writ petitions or a defence.

POSH Compliance Advisor

MITGeneralLitigation

Assesses Indian workplace sexual-harassment prevention and redressal compliance under the POSH Act and Rules. Use for Internal Committee constitution, policy and training audits, complaint procedure, inquiry governance, annual reporting or remediation.

Post-Hearing Brief

MITGeneralLitigation

Use when drafting a post-hearing brief (also called a post-hearing submission or closing written submission) in an international arbitration or formal hearing. Synthesizes the evidentiary record, addresses witness credibility, analyzes applicable law, responds to opposing arguments, and requests specific relief with supporting reasoning. Applicable to ICC, DIAC, LCIA, SIAC, ADCCAC, and DIFC-LCIA arbitrations as well as common-law court proceedings.

Post-Settlement Correspondence

Apache-2.0GeneralLitigation

Drafts structured post-settlement correspondence memorializing negotiation history and final terms in commercial litigation. Use when producing settlement confirmation letters, post-mediation summaries, settlement memoranda, or implementation checklists after parties reach agreement.

Precedent Finder

MITGeneralLitigation

Use when a lawyer or researcher needs the top most-cited or most-relevant cases on a specific legal issue in a specific jurisdiction, including citator status (still good law, overruled, or distinguished), treatment by later courts, and authority level. Covers common-law and civil-law courts; MENA-first (DIFC, ADGM, UAE onshore, KSA, Lebanon). Never fabricates case names — returns "no verified precedent found" rather than inventing citations. Heavier and more selective than case-law-search; focuses on depth over breadth.

Precedent Mapper

MITGeneralLitigation

Maps the authorities on a specific legal point and how they relate to each other — which follows which, which distinguishes or overrules another, where a genuine split exists — sourcing every case's existence, citation, and holding only from material retrieved this session or supplied by the user. Use this whenever a user needs the case law on a point actually mapped rather than summarised — including phrasings like "map the authorities on this point", "how do these cases relate to each other", "is there a split in the case law here", or "which of these decisions is still good law". Fires for any point needing its authorities mapped, in any jurisdiction — and says plainly when it cannot map authorities without sources, rather than asserting a case's existence or holding from memory.

/pressuretest — method v2.9 (`lq.pressuretest.method.v2.9`)

Apache-2.0GeneralLitigation

Pressure-test a legal position against the documents the user supplies. Use only when the user explicitly asks to pressure-test, stress-test or red-team an argument, or asks whether a pleading, submission, advice, connected contract set or the other side's case holds together on its own logic, dates, figures and cross-document consistency. Not for verifying citations or authorities (that is /cite-check), reading a redline, or legal research.

Privilege Log Builder

MITGeneralLitigation

Builds and audits privilege or withheld-document logs for litigation, arbitration, investigations, and regulatory productions. Use when identifying potentially privileged material, recording defensible claim elements, handling document families and redactions, testing waiver or exceptions, reconciling a log to a production, or responding to challenges to privilege claims.

Privilege Log Drafting

MITGeneralLitigation

Use when a litigation team must produce a privilege log as part of discovery or disclosure proceedings. Automatically processes a document set to identify privilege candidates, draft log entries with the required fields (date, author, recipient, privilege basis, description), and flag documents requiring attorney review. Covers attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine under US, UK, DIFC, ADGM, and MENA procedural frameworks.

Privilege log review

Apache-2.0GeneralLitigation

First-pass privilege log review — make the obvious privilege calls and flag the hard ones for attorney review without making close calls. Use when the user says "review the privilege log", "priv log", "check privilege on these docs", or has a log to QA before production.

Privilege Log Review

MITGeneralLitigation

First-pass privilege log review — make the obvious privilege calls and flag the hard ones for attorney review without making close calls.

Privilege Preflight EN - prompt check before sending to cloud AI

MITGeneralLitigation

Pre-flight check for legal content BEFORE it is sent to an external, cloud-based AI tool (browser chatbot, office-suite assistant, any API outside the firm's control). Inventories what actually sits in the prompt, scores five risk factors (client identifiability, facts under professional secrecy, litigation strategy and work-product, third-party personal data, AI provider terms), returns a banded verdict SAFE / CAUTION / STOP with a factor table and a disclosure-impact assessment, and for CAUTION prepares a redacted draft of the prompt for human approval. Sends nothing, never performs the final redaction. Use when: "can I paste this into ChatGPT", "does this prompt breach privilege", "privilege check before AI", "what to redact", "is this safe to send to a chatbot", law firm prompt audit, disclosure impact assessment before using cloud AI.

Procedural Order Drafter

MITGeneralLitigation

Drafts arbitral procedural orders and case-management timetables from tribunal directions, party submissions, applicable rules, and hearing logistics. Use when a tribunal secretary, arbitrator, or counsel needs Procedural Order No. 1, a timetable, document-production protocol, hearing directions, confidentiality arrangements, or an order recording procedural decisions. Use a neutral tribunal voice and distinguish agreed matters, tribunal rulings, and unresolved proposals; do not use for merits awards or party pleadings.

Production Set Checker

MITGeneralLitigation

Audits document productions before or after disclosure for scope, completeness, format, metadata, numbering, document families, redactions, privilege, confidentiality, technical integrity, exceptions, and delivery records. Use for production quality control, disclosure certification support, deficiency review, rolling-production reconciliation, or remediation of a defective production.