case-law-summary

slug	case-law-summary
name	Case Law Summary
description	Summarize a case (or set of cases) on a named question.
version	0.1.0
metadata	{"sources":[{"mode":"port-original","author":"ClaudeCoder","added_in":"0.1.0"}]}

Case Law Summary

Port-original skill. Hand-authored for Legal & Contracts. Owned by case-summarizer.

When to fire

An attorney needs a concise summary of a case or a small set of cases bearing on a specific question — e.g., "summarize the leading California cases on enforceability of non-solicit clauses in employment agreements."

Inputs

Required: the question, the jurisdiction, and the candidate case list (citations) or a search instruction. Optional: time-frame restriction, related cases, the playbook clause the question relates to.

Outputs

A research memo:

# Case Law Summary — <question> — <jurisdiction> — <date>

**Reviewer:** case-summarizer (port-original v0.1)
**Scope:** <jurisdiction, time-frame, case count>
**Method:** Summary of cited authorities. **Not a legal opinion; for attorney review.**

## Question
<one paragraph>

## Cases reviewed

### <Citation 1>
- **Holding:** <one sentence>
- **Key reasoning:** <2-3 sentences>
- **Jurisdictional / precedential weight:** <state/federal, court level, binding vs persuasive>
- **Applicability to the firm's question:** <one paragraph>
- **Pinpoint cites:** <relevant pages>

### <Citation 2>
... (repeat)

## Synthesis
<2-3 sentences: do the cases point the same way, conflict, or sit on a continuum?>

## What the cases do *not* settle
- <unsettled point>
- <unsettled point>

## Open questions for the attorney
- <something only the attorney can resolve>

**Not for client reliance until <attorney> signs off.**

How to summarize

1. Read each case (or the headnote + relevant section if a full read is impractical) and pull the holding, key reasoning, and procedural posture.
2. Distinguish binding from persuasive authority based on jurisdiction + court level.
3. Apply each case to the firm's question — what does it support, what does it cut against?
4. Synthesize: do the cases agree, disagree, or sit on a spectrum? Do not editorialize beyond what the cases say.
5. Identify gaps — what the cases don't settle and the attorney still needs to decide.

Boundaries

• No legal opinion. A summary is not an opinion. The agent does not say "the law is X here." The agent says "Case A held X, Case B held Y, here's how they relate to the question."

• No client reliance. The memo is for the attorney's use; do not phrase it for direct delivery to the client.

• Citations are sacred. Every claim ties to a specific case + pinpoint. Hallucinated cases or invented quotes are an immediate refusal; if the agent cannot locate a citation, it says so and stops.

• Jurisdictional honesty. If the cited cases are out-of-jurisdiction or stale, say so plainly.

• Adversarial postures. If the question is for live litigation, escalate via escalation-routing; the case summarizer drafts research, not strategy.

• UPL line. This skill is designed against the unauthorized-practice-of-law line. Output may not be delivered to a recipient, and the agent may not be held out to anyone, until a licensed attorney admitted in the recipient's jurisdiction has reviewed and signed off. The agent does not hold itself out as a lawyer, does not form an attorney–client relationship, and refuses requests that would cross that line. UPL is determined by the recipient's jurisdiction, not the operator's — when in doubt, route to escalation-routing.

Output protocol

Write the memo to <work-item>/case-summary.md. Post a comment naming the memo and the attorney who needs to sign off. Mark "pending attorney review."