| name | status |
| description | Case status summary by audience — client-facing (plain language), internal (for the professor), or court-ready (formal caption format per local rules). Same facts, different framing and depth. Use when a student needs to update the client, brief the professor, or prepare a court status report.
|
| argument-hint | [client | internal | court] |
/status
- Load
~/.codebuddy/plugins/config/legal-workflows/legal-clinic/practice-profile.md → supervision style, plain-language standards, jurisdiction.
- Use the workflow below. Read case notes.
- Generate for the specified audience:
client — plain language, what happened/next/you do/reach usinternal — procedural posture, done since last check-in, upcoming, needs professor input, student's assessmentcourt — formal status report in caption format per local rules
- Supervision routing per audience (client-facing and court-ready usually flag).
/legal-clinic:status client
/legal-clinic:status internal
/legal-clinic:status court
Status: Audience-Aware Case Summaries
Purpose
Clinics generate enormous numbers of status updates — to clients, to professors, to co-counsel, to courts. Same case, same facts, completely different documents. This skill takes the case notes and produces the right summary for the right reader.
Load context
~/.codebuddy/plugins/config/legal-workflows/legal-clinic/practice-profile.md → supervision style, plain-language standards (for client-facing), jurisdiction.
Case notes for facts.
Audience modes
Client-facing
Reader: The client. Probably stressed. Possibly unfamiliar with legal process. Reading level per ~/.codebuddy/plugins/config/legal-workflows/legal-clinic/practice-profile.md plain-language standards (default 6th grade).
Include:
- What's happened since they last heard from the clinic
- What's happening next and when
- What (if anything) they need to do
- How to reach the clinic
Don't include:
- Legal analysis (they don't need to know the IRAC)
- Weaknesses in their case (unless it's time to have that conversation — and that's a call for the professor, not a status update)
- Jargon
Review label for the student (not for the client — strip before sending):
[AI-ASSISTED DRAFT — requires student review and supervision step per plugin config]
Check your jurisdiction's student practice rule for required law-student sign-off language; some jurisdictions require specific forms.
Dear [Client],
I wanted to update you on your case.
**What's happened:** [Plain English. "We filed your answer with the court on
[date]" not "The responsive pleading was submitted."]
**What's next:** [What and when. "The court scheduled a hearing for [date] at
[time]. You need to be there." Or: "We're waiting for the landlord's lawyer
to respond. That could take a few weeks."]
**What you need to do:** [Specific and clear. Or: "Nothing right now — we'll
let you know when we need something from you."]
**How to reach us:** [Clinic phone, hours, student name]
[Student name]
Law Student, Certified Legal Intern
Under the supervision of [Supervising Attorney]
[Clinic name]
Before sending: sending a client status update is a consequential action. The gate is the supervision workflow in ## Supervision style in ~/.codebuddy/plugins/config/legal-workflows/legal-clinic/practice-profile.md, reinforced by the Part 0 role check confirming a licensed supervising attorney owns the setup. Confirm the draft has been reviewed per the supervision protocol (queue / flag / lighter-touch) and all internal review labels ([AI-ASSISTED DRAFT], [VERIFY], etc.) have been removed from the client-facing copy.
Internal (for the professor)
Reader: The supervising professor. Knows the law. Wants to know where the case stands and what the student needs from them.
Include:
- Procedural status (where in the life of the case)
- What's been done since last check-in
- What's coming up (deadlines, hearings)
- Issues needing professor input
- Student's assessment (how it's going, concerns)
# Status: [Client] — [Matter] — [date]
**Student:** [name] | **Procedural posture:** [pre-filing / answer filed /
evidence exchange / motion pending / etc.]
## Since last check-in
- [What's been done]
## Upcoming
| Date | What | Action needed by |
|---|---|---|
| [date] | [deadline/hearing] | [date] |
## Needs professor input
- [Question or decision point — specific]
## Student's assessment
[How it's going. Strengths, concerns, strategic questions. This is where the
student's thinking shows.]
---
[AI-ASSISTED DRAFT — student should revise the assessment section especially;
that's your thinking, not a summary of notes]
Court-ready
Reader: A judge or clerk. Formal. Specific to what the court needs (often a status report ordered by the court, or a statement in advance of a status conference).
Include:
- Procedural history (briefly)
- Current status of evidence exchange/motions/settlement
- What's outstanding
- Proposed next steps or scheduling
Format: Per local rules. Caption, signature block, certificate of service if filed.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
AI-ASSISTED DRAFT — requires student analysis and attorney review
Court filings ALWAYS require professor review before filing
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
[Caption per jurisdiction — VERIFY against current local rules]
STATUS REPORT
[Party] respectfully submits this status report pursuant to [the court's
order of [date] / local rule [X] / in advance of the status conference
scheduled for [date]].
1. Procedural history: [brief]
2. Current status: [evidence exchange status / motion status / settlement status]
3. Outstanding matters: [what's pending]
4. Proposed next steps: [scheduling, if the court wants input]
[Signature block — student attorney under supervision of [Professor]]
[Certificate of service if filing]
---
[VERIFY: caption format, local status report requirements, service
requirements — per current [Court] rules]
Supervision routing
Per ~/.codebuddy/plugins/config/legal-workflows/legal-clinic/practice-profile.md:
- Client-facing → usually a flag trigger (client communication)
- Internal → no flag (it's going to the professor anyway)
- Court-ready → always flagged if formal queue enabled (court filings)
What this skill does NOT do
- Decide what to tell the client. Especially on bad news or case weaknesses — that's a conversation for the student and professor to have, then the student to have with the client. Status updates are status, not strategic advice.
- File anything with a court. Drafts the document; professor reviews; filing per clinic procedure.
- Replace the student's assessment in internal status. The "student's assessment" section is the student's thinking — the draft can scaffold it but can't write it.
Close with the next-steps decision tree
End with the next-steps decision tree per practice-profile.md ## Outputs. Customize the options to what this skill just produced — the five default branches (draft the X, escalate, get more facts, watch and wait, something else) are a starting point, not a lock-in. The tree is the output; the lawyer picks.
