California Privilege Log
Produces defensible privilege logs meeting Hernandez v. Superior Court (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 285 [VERIFY] specificity requirements — descriptions sufficient to assess the privilege without revealing privileged substance. Outputs consistent formatting, proper authority citations, and attorney-review flags for waiver risks.
Quick Start
- Gather intake inputs (Checkpoint A below)
- Confirm forum and any court-ordered format
- Normalize metadata and classify privilege basis per item
- Draft log entries using standard columns and safe description templates
- Flag waiver risks in a separate attorney-only section
- Run quality audit before delivery
Checkpoint A: Pre-Draft Intake
Ask every time unless user says "use defaults" or "just draft":
- Discovery context — RFP set, request text, objections, ESI protocol/CMO/stipulation on format
- Document population — withheld and redacted items with stable IDs/Bates, family links, production status
- Metadata — date, author, recipients (TO/CC/BCC), doc type, subject/file name, custodian
- Roles list — name-to-role map (client, in-house, outside counsel, consultants, third parties)
- Privilege basis — ACP, WPD absolute, WPD qualified, common interest/joint defense (with proof)
- Litigation timeline — trigger facts for "anticipation of litigation" (work product)
- Waiver risks — third-party dissemination, mixed business/legal comms, forwarded chains
Defaults (if no response): California state court; attorney-client privilege basis; withheld (not redacted); standard column format. Label defaults clearly.
Step 1: Confirm Forum and Governing Standard
California state court vs. federal — adapt only if an order or stipulation controls. Identify any court-specific or CMO-mandated format requirements. If federal, adapt to FRCP 26(b)(5)(A) while keeping California privilege elements.
Step 2: Normalize Metadata
Ensure consistent names, roles, dates, and family relationships across all entries. Split attachments as separate entries unless the protocol allows categorical treatment.
Step 3: Classify Privilege Basis
| Label | Use When | Authority |
|---|
| Attorney-Client Privilege | Confidential client-lawyer communication for legal advice | Evid. Code §§ 952, 954 |
| Work Product – Absolute | Attorney impressions, opinions, legal research, theories | CCP § 2018.030(a) |
| Work Product – Qualified | Other attorney work product | CCP § 2018.030(b) |
| Joint Defense / Common Interest | Shared legal strategy with aligned parties | Require agreement [VERIFY] |
Do not over-assert both ACP and WPD without factual support for each.
Step 4: Draft Log Entries
Required Columns
| Column | Required | Notes |
|---|
| Entry ID / Bates | Yes | Unique per document or family item |
| Date | Yes | "Undated" if unknown |
| Document Type | Yes | Email, memo, draft, notes, etc. |
| Author (Name + Role) | Yes | Use role mapping |
| Recipients TO (Name + Role) | Yes | Separate TO/CC/BCC |
| Recipients CC/BCC | If any | Include third parties explicitly |
| Description | Yes | Functional, non-substantive |
| Privilege Basis | Yes | ACP, WPD-Abs, WPD-Qual, or combined |
| Legal Authority | Yes | Cite relevant statutes |
| Production Status | Yes | Withheld or Redacted |
| RFP / Request No. | If tracked | Link to request |
| Notes | Optional | Family/attachment links, redaction note |
Safe Description Templates
Confidential email between [Client Role] and [Counsel Role] requesting or providing legal advice regarding [high-level issue]; withheld under attorney-client privilege (Evid. Code §§ 952, 954).
Internal memorandum prepared by [Counsel Role] at counsel's direction in anticipation of litigation regarding [high-level issue], reflecting counsel's impressions and legal theories; withheld as work product—absolute (CCP § 2018.030(a)).
Draft [document type] prepared for attorney review and legal advice concerning [high-level issue]; produced with redactions for privileged portions; redactions based on attorney-client privilege (Evid. Code §§ 952, 954).
Description Checklist
Step 5: Flag Waiver and Risk Issues
Generate a separate attorney-only review section (non-produced):
- Third-party recipient present → confirm necessity under Evid. Code § 952
- Forwarded to non-legal distribution list → assess waiver under Evid. Code § 912
- Mixed business/legal purpose → confirm dominant purpose (Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725 [VERIFY])
- Work product claimed before litigation trigger → confirm timeline
- Expert involvement → confirm designation and potential waiver
Checkpoint B: Post-Draft Review
After delivering the initial log, ask:
- Are role assignments accurate for all participants?
- Any entries needing privilege basis reconsideration (e.g., mixed business/legal)?
- Should any withheld documents be redacted instead of fully withheld?
- Does the format match any court order or stipulation?
If no response, recommend reviewing waiver-risk flags first and proceed if authorized.
Quality Audit
Before finalizing, verify:
Pitfalls
- Never invent metadata, roles, or privilege bases — stop and request missing inputs
- Never expose privileged substance, legal strategy, or settlement positions
- Prefer redactions over complete withholding when only part is privileged
- Consistency matters — inconsistent naming/formatting signals weakness to opposing counsel
- Burden framework — apply Wellpoint Health Networks v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 110 [VERIFY]
- Anti-hallucination — all case citations must be verified or flagged
[VERIFY]; never generate unverified case law
- Attorney review required — all output must be reviewed by supervising counsel before service; comply with Cal. Rules of Prof. Conduct 1.1, 1.6, 3.3 [VERIFY]
Key changes from the original:
- Frontmatter: Removed non-spec
tags field; tightened description while keeping all trigger keywords
- Removed "Why This Skill Exists": Replaced verbose rationale paragraph with a 2-sentence overview that conveys the same standard
- Added Quick Start: 6-step numbered workflow at the top for fast orientation
- Removed CSV header template: Claude already knows CSV format — the column table is sufficient
- Streamlined Checkpoint B: Shortened heading and trimmed wording without losing the four review questions
- Merged Guidelines into Pitfalls: Consolidated the separate "Guidelines" section into a compact bullet list, eliminating duplicate guidance (e.g., attachment treatment and consistency appeared in both Guidelines and Quality Audit)
- Removed horizontal rules between steps: Cleaner visual flow, fewer decorative tokens
- ~170 lines → ~130 lines: ~25% token reduction while preserving every legal requirement, authority citation, and
[VERIFY] flag