| name | uk-disclosure-list-review |
| title | uk-disclosure-list-review |
| description | Use when users say "review this disclosure list", "QC disclosure", "check privilege descriptions", "inspection objections", "missing custodians", "adverse documents", or need England and Wales disclosure checked for issue coverage, gaps, privilege, redactions, and inspection risk. |
| author | LegalQuants |
| author_url | https://github.com/LegalQuants/lq-skills/tree/main/skills/uk-disclosure-list-review |
| license | Apache-2.0 |
| version | 0.1.0 |
| execution_mode | open |
| jurisdiction | gb |
| practice | litigation |
| language | en |
| tags | ["disclosure","cpr","privilege","england-and-wales","documents"] |
uk-disclosure-list-review
When to Use
- A user has a draft disclosure list, disclosure review export, or document schedule.
- The team needs to check whether obvious sources, custodians, adverse documents, or inspection objections are missing.
- Privilege, confidentiality, redaction, or inspection wording needs first-pass review.
- The matter is in England and Wales civil litigation.
This skill is a quality-control workflow. It does not make final privilege calls or certify disclosure compliance.
Audience and Work Shape
Audience: England and Wales litigation associates, paralegals, and disclosure-support teams preparing a disclosure list or QC report for solicitor/partner review.
Work shape: pattern-matched review with accretive judgment elements. The skill maps coverage and flags privilege/adverse-document issues; it does not certify disclosure compliance.
Legal Failure Modes
- Legal support, not legal advice: the report is a QC aid, not a certification of compliance or privilege.
- Privilege/confidentiality: disclosure review may itself be privileged work product. Keep outputs inside the privilege group unless a responsible lawyer approves circulation.
- Accountability: the responsible solicitor decides privilege, inspection, adverse-document significance, and whether the list is adequate.
Access Modes
This skill works in three modes:
- Live source mode - use browser, web search, MCP, API, or other configured access to retrieve rules, orders, filings, document lists, or repository exports.
- User-supplied source mode - use uploaded or pasted disclosure lists, pleadings, chronologies, witness statements, search records, document schedules, rules, or orders supplied by the user.
- No-source mode - prepare a disclosure QC checklist and source-request list, but do not state that coverage, privilege, inspection, or adverse-document issues exist.
If the disclosure list, source documents, search record, or governing order cannot be retrieved or supplied, mark the relevant issue source_missing or verify_current_rule. Do not infer disclosure defects from model memory.
How It Works
1. Confirm disclosure context
Identify:
- Court, track, procedural stage, and applicable disclosure regime or order.
- Issues for disclosure or pleaded issues.
- Custodians, repositories, date ranges, and search terms used.
- Whether the list is standard disclosure, issue-based disclosure, specific disclosure, pre-action disclosure, or another ordered exercise.
