cross-practice-coordination

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

1. Identify the deliverable. Who owns the output that goes to the requester? That agent runs last and produces the final artifact.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.