| slug | cross-practice-coordination |
| name | Cross-Practice Coordination |
| description | Coordinate handoffs when work spans multiple practice areas (e.g., M&A diligence touching IP + employment + privacy). |
| version | 0.1.0 |
| metadata | {"sources":[{"mode":"port-original","author":"Jannes Stubbemann","added_in":"0.1.0"}]} |
Cross-Practice Coordination
Port-original skill. Hand-authored for this Agent Company; not from upstream anthropics/claude-for-legal. Owned by the CEO role.
When to fire
After intake-triage flagged the matter as multi-practice (2+ specialists from different practice areas). The CEO uses this skill to sequence handoffs so specialists don't block each other, duplicate work, or — worst — produce work product that contradicts another practice's position on the same matter.
Inputs
- The triage decision from
intake-triage (primary agent, secondary agents, deadline, priority, jurisdiction, privilege posture).
- The matter itself.
Outputs
A coordination plan, recorded on the matter:
sequence:
- step: 1
agent: <agent-slug>
skill: <skill-slug>
inputs: <what they need to start>
outputs: <what they produce, by when>
privilege: <how privilege is preserved across this handoff>
- step: 2
agent: <agent-slug>
...
checkpoints:
- after_step: 1
review: <what the CEO checks before unblocking step 2>
deconflict_protocol: <rule for resolving disagreements between specialists>
final_deliverable_owner: <agent that owns the deliverable to the requester>
human_signoff_required_before: [<artifact>, ...]
How to plan a multi-practice workflow
- Identify the deliverable. Who owns the output that goes to the requester? That agent runs last and produces the final artifact.
- Walk back the dependency chain. What does the deliverable need? Each input becomes a step earlier in the sequence, owned by whichever specialist produces it. Example for an M&A diligence run touching IP + employment + privacy:
- Final:
corporate-legal produces the diligence memo + disclosure schedule.
- Inputs:
ip-legal produces the IP portfolio + clearance findings; employment-legal produces the workforce diligence (restrictive covenants, leave-tracker exposure, open investigations); privacy-legal produces the processing-activity inventory and DPA-stack review.
- Sequence: parallel ip-legal + employment-legal + privacy-legal → merge into corporate-legal.
- Identify shared inputs. If two specialists need the same artifact (e.g., the target's processing-activity inventory feeds both privacy-legal and ai-governance-legal), produce it once and fan out — don't have two practices repeat it.
- Preserve privilege across handoffs. Specialists hand each other summaries and citations, not full privileged workproduct, unless the matter is run as a unified privileged investigation under common interest. Note the privilege posture explicitly at each step.
- Define a deconflict protocol. When specialists disagree (e.g., privacy-legal thinks the new feature requires a PIA; product-legal thinks the risk calibration says no), the disagreement itself is the deliverable to the CEO. Do not pick a side automatically; surface it for attorney review.
Common multi-practice patterns
- M&A diligence on a target with US + EU workforce and a data-stack. Threads: corporate-legal (lead), ip-legal, employment-legal, privacy-legal. Watch for: privilege boundary when the target's outside counsel is producing privileged materials under common interest.
- Product launch touching privacy + AI + regulated industry. Threads: product-legal (lead), privacy-legal, ai-governance-legal, regulatory-legal. Watch for: AI inventory updates feeding the AI policy monitor.
- Internal investigation with employment + privacy + litigation dimensions. Threads: employment-legal (lead under privilege), privacy-legal (DSAR exposure, retention conflicts), litigation-legal (hold issuance, anticipated litigation). Watch for: privilege preservation; investigation log must remain attorney work product.
- Counterparty demand crossing IP + commercial. Threads: litigation-legal (lead), ip-legal (IP portfolio cross-check), commercial-legal (underlying contract terms, FRE 408 awareness). Watch for: send-gate on any counter-response.
Boundaries
- The CEO sequences but does not perform. Each specialist still owns their own skill calls.
- The CEO does not resolve cross-practice legal disagreements. When specialists conflict, the deliverable is the conflict itself, surfaced for attorney review.
- The CEO never relaxes the privilege posture across a handoff. If preserving privilege requires routing through outside counsel, escalate.
- The CEO never speeds up a workflow by collapsing a checkpoint. Checkpoints exist because the next step's output depends on the prior step's review.
Output protocol
Write the coordination plan to the matter as a comment / note. Enqueue step 1's specialist skill. After each checkpoint, the CEO re-reviews against the plan; only then does step N+1's specialist get unblocked.
