--- name: legal-hold-bossmann007 title: 'Legal hold' description: Issue, refresh, release, or report on legal holds — drafts the hold notice as .docx, updates legal_hold fields in _log.yaml, and calendars the next refresh. Use when the user says "issue a hold", "refresh hold", "release hold", or asks for a portfolio-wide hold status report. author: Bossmann007 author_url: https://github.com/Bossmann007/claude-legal-br/tree/main/litigation-legal/skills/legal-hold license: Apache-2.0 version: 0.1.1 execution_mode: open jurisdiction: br practice: litigation language: en --- # /legal-hold 1. If `--status` (no slug): read `_log.yaml`, produce portfolio-wide hold report. 2. Otherwise: load `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/matters/[slug]/matter.md` + log row. 3. Load `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-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 > **Note on terminology.** This skill's name and internal references keep the US term "legal hold" (a.k.a. "litigation hold") because that's the plugin's file/command name, but Brazilian civil procedure has **no common-law litigation-hold doctrine** — there is no spoliation tort, no *Zubulake* duty-to-preserve triggered by anticipation of litigation, and no Rule 37(e) sanctions regime to defend against. What Brazil has instead is a **dever de guarda documental** (documentary-custody duty) that becomes legally consequential through **risco probatório**: if a party is later ordered to produce a document (exibição — CPC arts. 396-404) and cannot because it destroyed or discarded it, the court may **presumir verdadeiros os fatos** the document would have proven (CPC art. 400) and the destruction may be weighed as **litigância de má-fé** (CPC arts. 79-81). Everything below should be read as "preserve documents now so you don't face an adverse presumption or a bad-faith finding later," **not** as "avoid spoliation sanctions." The mechanism is evidentiary and behavioral, not a standalone sanctions statute. ## Purpose A preservation notice is the most mechanical high-stakes document 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 — Brazil-first The preservation duty here is **not** a doctrine with a bright-line trigger like the US "reasonable anticipation of litigation." It is a **risk posture**, built on three BR sources: 1. **Exibição de documento ou coisa (CPC arts. 396-404).** A party (or a third party) can be ordered to produce a specific document or thing in its possession. Production is **narrow and request-specific** — there is no broad pretrial discovery. But once ordered, the document must exist. 2. **Presunção de veracidade (CPC art. 400).** If the party ordered to produce refuses **injustificadamente**, or claims not to possess a document the court is convinced it does (or did) possess, the court may accept as true the facts the requesting party intended to prove with it. Destroying or discarding a document to avoid producing it converts a preservation lapse into an evidentiary loss. `[settled — last confirmed 2026-07-02]` 3. **Inversão do ônus da prova (CDC art. 6º, VIII).** In consumer relations, where the consumer's allegations are plausible (verossimilhança) or the consumer is hipossuficiente, the judge may shift the burden of proof to the supplier. A supplier who cannot document its side because it failed to preserve records bears that shifted burden with empty hands. `[settled — last confirmed 2026-07-02]` Overlay: **LGPD retention (Lei 13.709/2018).** Preservation for litigation risk coexists with data-minimization duties — personal data should not be retained beyond its purpose, but litigation/regulatory need is a lawful basis to retain (LGPD art. 7º; art. 16). Scope the hold to what risco probatório requires; don't use a hold as a pretext for indefinite retention of personal data. `[model knowledge — verify]` The trigger, scope, and exposure cited in the draft are a starting-point read for the matter — confirm with the responsible advogado before issuing, refreshing, or releasing. > **US-litigation fallback (GATED — only if the matter touches US proceedings).** If this matter has a parallel US litigation track (cross-border dispute, US discovery, US regulator), then US preservation doctrine *does* apply to that track: the duty attaches on reasonable anticipation of litigation (*Zubulake*), FRCP Rule 37(e) governs sanctions for lost ESI, and regulatory preservation obligations may overlay (SEC Rule 17a-4, HIPAA, etc.). In that case the hold must satisfy **both** regimes — the BR risco-probatório posture AND the US duty-to-preserve — and the stricter scope controls. Do not apply this fallback to a Brazil-only matter; there is no US-style duty to import. ## Load context - `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/matters/_log.yaml` — log row (legal_hold fields + status) - `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/matters/[slug]/matter.md` — matter context (counterparty, facts, key custodians from internal_owners) - `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-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 `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md`. If the Role is Non-lawyer: > Issuing a preservation notice has legal consequences — the scope, custodian list, and timing create the custody record the company will be judged on if a document later comes up missing under a pedido de exibição (CPC arts. 396-404). If a document that should have been preserved is gone, the court can presumir verdadeiros the facts it would have proven (CPC art. 400) and can weigh the loss as litigância de má-fé. 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 what triggered the concern, the proposed scope and custodians, the BR preservation posture (risco probatório sob CPC art. 400 / inversão do ônus sob CDC art. 6º, VIII where applicable), LGPD retention considerations, 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 posture before issuing.** Identify the source of the risco probatório for this matter: is there a foreseeable pedido de exibição (CPC arts. 396-404)? Is this a consumer relation where inversão do ônus da prova (CDC art. 6º, VIII) could shift the burden onto the company? Is there a regulatory or contractual retention duty? Confirm what a later court would expect to have been preserved, and the exposure if it is gone (presunção de veracidade sob CPC art. 400; litigância de má-fé sob CPC arts. 79-81). Check LGPD retention constraints so the scope is a lawful basis to retain, not over-retention. Cite primary sources. If uncertain, say so and get advogado sign-off before issuing. *(For matters with a parallel US track, also confirm the US duty-to-preserve per the GATED fallback in `## Jurisdiction assumption — Brazil-first`.)* > **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 sigilo/confidentiality marking in the template. Confirm the correct marking for your matter — recall that the protection regime here is **sigilo profissional do advogado (art. 7º, Estatuto da OAB — Lei 8.906/1994)**, not US work product (see the plugin CLAUDE.md `## Outputs`). **Inputs:** 1. **Scope** — categories of documents, data, communications. Start specific: contracts with counterparty, all communications referencing [project/subject], related financial records, calendar entries. `[review — scope too broad = operational burden + LGPD over-retention; too narrow = risco probatório se houver exibição]` 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, DPO/encarregado if personal data). `[review — the custodian list is the difference between defensible custody and an empty-handed exibição]` 3. **Date range** — when to start preserving from (usually: the event that raised the concern, or earlier), through the present + ongoing. 4. **Systems** — email, Slack/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 `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md` if one is configured; otherwise the default template below. **Default hold notice template:** ``` [CONFIDENCIAL — COMUNICAÇÃO SOB SIGILO PROFISSIONAL DO ADVOGADO (art. 7º, Lei 8.906/1994)] DATA: [effective date] PARA: [custodian name] DE: [signer — per `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md` default] ASSUNTO: NOTIFICAÇÃO DE GUARDA E PRESERVAÇÃO DE DOCUMENTOS — [matter short name] You are receiving this notice because [company] has determined that [one- sentence description of the dispute / investigation, avoiding prejudicial detail]. Existe risco de que estes documentos venham a ser objeto de pedido de exibição (CPC arts. 396-404), e a perda ou descarte de documento relevante pode levar o juízo a presumir verdadeiros os fatos que ele provaria (CPC art. 400). É necessário preservar todos os documentos e comunicações potencialmente relacionados a este assunto. EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, you must preserve: 1. All documents, emails, text messages, Slack/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/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 preservation notice for attorney review, not a notice ready to issue. Issuing it fixes a custody record the company will be judged on if a document later comes up missing under a pedido de exibição (CPC art. 400 presunção; CPC arts. 79-81 má-fé). A licensed advogado reviews, approves, and issues. Do not distribute this draft unreviewed. **Writes:** - `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/matters/[slug]/legal-hold-v1.docx` via the `docx` skill - Appends to `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-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: ```yaml 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. A gap here is exactly what produces an empty-handed exibição later. Records this in history.md as a separate entry requiring action. **Writes:** - `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-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 (não pendente de recurso, not likely to reopen, prescrição já consumada em relação a pretensões conexas). **Before releasing the hold (the consequential act — preservation obligations resume normal retention):** Read `## Who's using this` in `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md`. If the Role is Non-lawyer: > Releasing a preservation notice has legal consequences — once released, custodians may begin deleting material. Release before the risk is truly gone re-exposes the company to an adverse presunção (CPC art. 400) if a document is later requested and is no longer there. 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, exposure from conexão / pending recurso / prescrição ainda em curso, 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. "A notificação de guarda e preservação emitida em [date] a respeito de [matter] fica liberada com efeito a partir de [date]. A retenção normal (e o cumprimento das regras de retenção da LGPD) volta a vigorar." **Writes:** - `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-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: ```markdown # 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 (`/legal-hold --status` with no slug) OR invoked by `/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`, `/matter-intake` closes by offering to run `/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 + LGPD over-retention. Scope too narrow = risco probatório se houver pedido de exibição. 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.)