litigation-playbook

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)

1. Clocks first: limitation periods, response deadlines (answer/motion dates), contractual notice periods, insurer notice windows. Unknown deadline ⇒ [DEADLINE UNCONFIRMED — calendar with local counsel], conspicuously.
2. Hold trigger: litigation reasonably anticipated ⇒ hold notice now (template below).
3. Severity tier: exposure range × injunction risk × publicity × precedent effect.
4. 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).