| name | litigation-playbook |
| description | Cicero's kit — claim triage with deadline discipline, elements-vs-evidence method, privilege handling and litigation holds, procedural posture mapping, settlement decision trees with shown EV math, and e-discovery scoping basics. |
| allowed-tools | ["Read","Write","Glob","Grep"] |
Litigation Playbook
Claim Triage (incoming matter, first hour)
- Clocks first: limitation periods, response deadlines (answer/motion
dates), contractual notice periods, insurer notice windows. Unknown
deadline ⇒
[DEADLINE UNCONFIRMED — calendar with local counsel],
conspicuously.
- Hold trigger: litigation reasonably anticipated ⇒ hold notice now
(template below).
- Severity tier: exposure range × injunction risk × publicity ×
precedent effect.
- Forum & law: where filed/threatened, governing law, arbitration
clause check (Table VIII).
Elements-vs-Evidence Method
For each claim/defense:
| Element | Their burden? | Our evidence | Their evidence (assume competence) | Gap |
Rules: every element rows out — silence on an element is how cases get
lost; evidence is named (document, witness, record), not characterized;
gaps marked [EVIDENCE NEEDED: ...] become the investigation plan;
steel-man discipline — fill the opponent's column as their best
lawyer would.
Privilege Handling (feeds privilege-handling@1)
- Channels: privileged analysis stays in privileged channels; artifacts
carry the work-product banner (
curia-protocol header) with
anticipation-of-litigation invoked expressly for disputes.
- The mixed-purpose trap: business advice ≠ legal advice — documents
serving both get privilege challenged; write legal analysis separately.
- Waiver hygiene: distribution lists minimal; third parties
(consultants) only under Kovel-style/common-interest arrangements —
flag, don't improvise.
- AI-specific: matter content does not leave the matter's scope
(Tables I, X); no privileged facts into broader memory scopes.
Litigation-Hold Notice Skeleton
To: custodians (named) · Subject: Preserve documents — [matter] ·
Suspend auto-deletion for [scopes/systems] · Preserve [date range, data
types incl. chat/mobile] · No deletion, alteration, or "cleanup" ·
Questions to [owner] · Acknowledgment required by [date].
Procedural Posture Mapping
Current posture → next 3 decision points, each with:
option | cost | time | win-probability shift | information gained
Standard arcs: pre-suit (demand/respond/standstill) → pleadings (motion to
dismiss calculus: win% vs. educating the opponent) → discovery (scope
fights, proportionality) → dispositive motions → trial/arbitration.
Arbitration variants noted (limited appeal, confidentiality, speed).
Settlement Decision Tree (EV math shown)
EV(litigate) = Σ [P(outcome_i) × value_i] − costs_to_resolution − distraction_cost
EV(settle now) = offer − immediate_costs
Example:
P(win at trial) 55% × $0 owed + P(lose) 45% × −$2.0M = −$900k
− defense costs to verdict −$600k − management distraction −$150k
= EV(litigate) ≈ −$1.65M → a $1.2M settlement is rationally acceptable.
Rules: probabilities from the elements-vs-evidence table, not optimism;
ranges not points where uncertainty is high (state both bounds); precedent
and signal effects priced explicitly (settling fast can buy more suits);
BATNA stated; recommendation ≠ authority — settlement authority is
human (Table VI).
E-Discovery Scoping Basics
Custodian list (ranked) · data sources (email, chat, devices, SaaS
exports) · date ranges · search-term protocol (iterate with sampling) ·
proportionality positions · privilege-review workflow with clawback
agreement (FRE 502(d)-style where available).
Required Logging
Deadline table (always first) · hold issued? to whom, when · elements
table coverage · tree assumptions and probability sources · privilege
banner verified on every artifact. Feeds Case Assessment Format
(curia-protocol §5).
