A Claude Skill that triages an incoming subpoena (or third-party document request, or law-enforcement request) — extracts the issuer, jurisdiction, custodian, response deadline, requested document categories, and privilege exposure; classifies whether the firm has standing to object; estimates scope (number of custodians implicated, expected document volume) — and produces a structured intake report the in-house counsel uses to scope the response. Replaces the paralegal’s first-pass read of a 12-page subpoena with a 10-minute review of a structured report. Always escalates to counsel; never auto-responds, never auto-acknowledges service.
When to use
The firm receives subpoenas or law-enforcement requests at a frequency where intake triage is itself a bottleneck (typically >5 per month).
The firm has a written subpoena response procedure (named counsel owners, document custodian map, privilege-log practices). The skill structures the intake; the procedure is the substance.
The firm distinguishes between subpoena types (civil third-party, grand-jury, regulatory, foreign legal-process) — different objection paths and timelines apply, and the skill needs the firm’s classification rubric.
When NOT to use
Auto-acknowledging service. Service rules vary by jurisdiction; in some, acknowledging service triggers the response clock. The counsel decides on acknowledgement.
Replacing counsel’s privilege analysis. The skill flags privilege exposure (privileged communications likely in scope, work-product doctrine implicated). The counsel does the analysis.
Foreign letters rogatory or Hague Convention requests. Different procedure, different timeline, different counsel involvement. The skill flags but does not handle.
Grand jury subpoenas. Often confidential; the skill should not write to standard tracking systems for these — counsel determines storage posture per matter.
Replacing a legal-hold issuance. A subpoena triggers a hold for the relevant custodians; the skill flags the trigger but the litigation hold orchestration is the issuance flow.
Setup
Drop the bundle. Place apps/web/public/artifacts/subpoena-triage-claude-skill/SKILL.md into your Claude Code skills directory.
Author the firm’s classification rubric. Per subpoena type, document: who owns the response, which jurisdiction’s rules apply, default timeline, default counsel routing. Template in references/1-subpoena-classification.md.
Configure the custodian-map source. The skill estimates which custodians are implicated; that requires a current map. Pull from HRIS / e-discovery platform / legal-ops registry.
Set the privilege-flag rules. When a subpoena’s scope likely overlaps with attorney-client communications, the skill flags it. The flagging rules vary by firm (in-house GC vs outside-counsel posture). Template in references/2-privilege-flag-rules.md.
Dry-run on closed subpoenas. Process three closed subpoenas. Compare the skill’s classification, scope estimate, and privilege flags to what the counsel actually did.
What the skill does
Six steps. Classification before scope estimation, because scope depends on what type of subpoena it is.
Extract metadata. Issuer (court, agency, requesting party), case caption, service date, response deadline, jurisdiction. Halt if any of these can’t be determined — counsel needs all five before triage proceeds.
Classify by type. Civil third-party / grand-jury / regulatory (SEC, DOJ, state AG) / foreign legal-process / law-enforcement. Per the firm’s rubric, route to the appropriate counsel owner and timeline.
Extract requested document categories. The subpoena’s requests are typically itemized; the skill extracts each and tags with the firm’s document-category taxonomy (contracts, communications, financials, technical specs, HR records, etc.). Flag overbroad requests (request asking for “all documents related to X” without temporal or scope limit).
Estimate custodian implications. From the document categories and the matter context, identify which custodians (named individuals or roles) are likely to hold responsive documents. Output: list of custodians, NOT a request to issue a hold (that’s the next step, counsel-approved).
Flag privilege exposure. Where requested categories overlap with likely-privileged communications (legal advice, work product, joint-defense communications), flag with paired guard (“flagging because category ‘all communications with counsel’ implicates attorney-client privilege; recommend privilege log preparation as part of response”).
Emit triage report. Structured Markdown for the counsel + JSONL audit log per intake.
Cost reality
LLM tokens — typically 8-15k input (subpoena PDF text + skill instructions) and 2-4k output. ~$0.10-0.20 per subpoena.
Counsel / paralegal time — the win. Manual triage of a complex subpoena is 1-2 hours. Reviewing the skill’s report is 15-30 minutes. The bigger time saver is on consistency — every subpoena goes through the same structure.
Setup time — 30 minutes plus per-firm rubric authoring.
Success metric
Time-to-counsel-routing — should drop from 4-24 hours (manual paralegal triage in queue) to under 30 minutes.
Counsel re-classification rate — share of subpoenas the counsel reclassifies after the skill’s output. Should be under 15%; above that the rubric needs tuning.
Privilege-flag coverage — at retrospective review, share of subpoenas where privilege issues actually arose vs. share where the skill flagged them. Misses are the signal to update the privilege rules.
vs alternatives
vs paralegal first-pass review. Paralegal review remains the right call for the subpoenas where context-heavy judgment matters (e.g. a subpoena referencing a matter the paralegal has been working). The skill complements rather than replaces — it handles volume while paralegals handle nuance.
vs e-discovery platform intake (Relativity, Everlaw, Logikcull). Those handle the response-execution side; the skill handles the intake-triage side. Use both.
vs counsel reads every subpoena cold. The most accurate path; also the slowest. The skill earns its setup cost on volume.
Watch-outs
Citation hallucination on legal classifications.Guard: every classification cites the firm’s rubric section; classifications without a citable rule are flagged “rubric does not cover” rather than asserted.
Privilege exposure missed.Guard: the privilege-flag rules are conservative — over-flag rather than under-flag. The counsel tightens later as patterns emerge.
Service-acknowledgement implication.Guard: the skill explicitly notes “skill processed; service NOT acknowledged” in the audit log. Counsel handles acknowledgement.
Confidentiality of grand-jury subpoenas.Guard: the skill’s classification step routes grand-jury subpoenas to a separate, restricted-access destination per the firm’s procedure. Counsel reviews before the skill writes to any standard tracking system.
Foreign legal-process drift.Guard: foreign letters rogatory and Hague Convention requests trigger a “skill cannot triage — escalate to international counsel” output rather than miscategorizing as a domestic subpoena.
Custodian estimate over-estimate.Guard: the custodian list is a starting point for the counsel; over-estimates are flagged as such. The skill does not auto-issue holds.
Stack
The bundle lives at apps/web/public/artifacts/subpoena-triage-claude-skill/:
---
name: subpoena-triage
description: Triage an incoming subpoena, third-party document request, or law-enforcement request. Extract metadata, classify by type, identify implicated custodians, flag privilege exposure, and emit a structured intake report for counsel review. Never auto-acknowledges service; never auto-issues holds; always escalates to counsel.
---
# Subpoena triage
## When to invoke
Use this skill when paralegal or legal-ops has received a subpoena (or third-party document request, or law-enforcement request) and wants a structured triage report before counsel routing.
Do NOT invoke this skill for:
- **Auto-acknowledging service** — counsel decides.
- **Foreign letters rogatory / Hague Convention requests** — different procedure; halt and escalate to international counsel.
- **Replacing counsel's privilege analysis** — the skill flags; counsel decides.
- **Issuing legal holds** — separate workflow; the skill flags but does not issue.
## Inputs
- Required: `subpoena_path` — path to the subpoena document (Markdown, plain text, or pre-extracted from PDF).
- Required: `classification_rubric` — path to the firm's classification rubric file.
- Required: `privilege_rules` — path to the firm's privilege-flag rules.
- Optional: `custodian_map` — path to a current custodian-of-record map.
## Reference files
- `references/1-subpoena-classification.md` — classification rubric template.
- `references/2-privilege-flag-rules.md` — privilege-flag rule template.
## Method
Six steps.
### 1. Extract metadata
From the subpoena document, extract:
- **Issuer** — court (with jurisdiction, division), agency name, or requesting party (with their counsel of record).
- **Case caption** — full caption including parties, case number, court.
- **Service date** — when service was effected. If unclear from the document, ask the user.
- **Response deadline** — the date by which the firm must respond. Compute from service date + the jurisdiction's response window if not stated explicitly.
- **Jurisdiction** — court's jurisdiction, governing rules (FRCP, state rules, agency rules).
If any of the five cannot be determined from the document, halt with a "metadata extraction incomplete — counsel to confirm before triage proceeds" message. Do NOT guess.
### 2. Classify by type
Per the rubric:
- **Civil third-party subpoena** — issued in litigation between two third parties; firm is a non-party witness.
- **Civil party subpoena** — firm is a party; the subpoena is from the opposing party. Different counsel ownership.
- **Grand-jury subpoena** — federal grand jury investigation. Confidential by nature; restricted handling.
- **Regulatory** — SEC, DOJ civil division, state AG, FTC, etc. Subtype by agency.
- **Foreign legal-process** — letters rogatory, Hague Convention requests, foreign agency requests. Halt and escalate.
- **Law-enforcement request** — federal or state law-enforcement; subtype by whether warrant-backed (less latitude to object) or pen-register / NSL / etc. (different latitude).
Output: classification + counsel owner per the rubric + jurisdiction-specific timeline.
### 3. Extract requested document categories
The subpoena's requests are typically itemized (Request No. 1, Request No. 2, ...). Extract each. Tag with the firm's document-category taxonomy:
- Contracts (commercial, employment, M&A)
- Communications (email, Slack, SMS, etc.)
- Financials (transactional records, accounting, tax)
- Technical specifications / source code
- HR records (personnel files, comp data)
- Marketing materials
- Other (catchall, surface to counsel for taxonomy expansion)
Flag overbroad requests:
- "All documents related to X" without temporal limit → flag for objection.
- "All communications" without scope → flag.
- Time period exceeding the relevant statute of limitations or the firm's records-retention policy → flag.
### 4. Estimate custodian implications
From document categories + matter context, identify likely custodians:
- Named individuals if the subpoena names them
- Roles likely to hold responsive material (e.g. "Communications" + "marketing campaign in 2023" → marketing team; "Contracts" + "Acme deal" → deal team + legal department)
Output: list of custodians with role + reasoning. Mark as "estimate — counsel to confirm before any hold is issued."
If `custodian_map` is provided, validate that the named custodians still hold the role. Stale roles trigger a flag.
### 5. Flag privilege exposure
Per the privilege-flag rules:
- **Attorney-client communications** — flag if requests cover communications with named counsel, in-house lawyers, or outside firms.
- **Work-product** — flag if requests cover analyses, drafts, or strategy documents prepared in anticipation of litigation.
- **Joint-defense / common-interest** — flag if the matter has joint-defense agreements covering related parties.
- **Settlement communications** (FRE 408) — flag if requests overlap with settlement discussions.
- **Other privileges** — per firm rules (clergy, marital, doctor-patient, etc.).
Each flag includes paired guard:
- "Flagging because category 'all communications with counsel' implicates attorney-client privilege; recommend privilege log preparation."
- "Flagging because category 'litigation strategy memos' implicates work-product doctrine; recommend Rule 26 work-product objection."
### 6. Emit triage report + audit log
Write the structured report. Append a JSONL audit-log line per intake — counsel needs the audit chain for matter-management.
Audit log line:
```json
{
"subpoena_id": "uuid",
"received_at": "ISO-8601",
"issuer": "...",
"classification": "civil-third-party",
"deadline": "ISO-8601",
"custodian_estimate_count": 5,
"privilege_flags": ["attorney-client", "work-product"],
"skill_version": "1.0",
"model": "claude-sonnet-4-6",
"service_acknowledged": false
}
```
The `service_acknowledged: false` is explicit — the skill never acknowledges service.
## Output format
```markdown
# Subpoena triage — {subpoena_id}
Triaged: {ISO timestamp} · Skill v1.0
⚠️ Service NOT acknowledged. Counsel handles acknowledgement.
## Metadata
- **Issuer:** {court / agency / requesting party}
- **Case caption:** {caption}
- **Service date:** {date}
- **Response deadline:** {date} ({N} days from service)
- **Jurisdiction:** {jurisdiction}
## Classification
- **Type:** {civil-third-party / grand-jury / regulatory / etc.}
- **Counsel owner (per firm rubric):** {role / name}
- **Timeline (per jurisdiction rules):** {N days standard, with motion-to-quash deadline at +{M} days}
## Requested document categories
| Request No. | Category | Scope | Flag |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Contracts | "All MSAs with Customer Acme 2020-2024" | none |
| 2 | Communications | "All communications regarding the dispute" | overbroad — no temporal limit |
| 3 | Financials | "All revenue records 2020-2024" | none |
## Custodian estimate (counsel to confirm before hold)
- Named: Jamie Liu (Acme deal owner)
- Role-based: Legal Department (privilege concerns), Finance (financials), Customer Success (Acme account)
Custodian count: 5-8 implicated.
## Privilege flags
- ⚠️ Attorney-client privilege: Request 2 covers "all communications" which implicates attorney-client communications. Recommend privilege log preparation.
- ⚠️ Work-product doctrine: Request 4's "litigation strategy memos" is core work-product. Recommend Rule 26 objection.
## Recommended actions for counsel
1. Acknowledge service per jurisdiction rules.
2. Confirm custodian list and issue litigation hold (see [litigation hold orchestration](/en/workflows/litigation-hold-orchestration-n8n/)).
3. Prepare objections per overbroad-request flags (Requests 2, 5).
4. Plan privilege-log preparation for Requests 2, 4.
5. Confirm response deadline calendar entry.
## Provenance
- Subpoena: `{path}`
- Rubric: `{path}` SHA `{short}`
- Privilege rules: `{path}` SHA `{short}`
- Audit log: `audit/2026-05.jsonl` line {N}
```
## Watch-outs
- **Citation hallucination.** *Guard:* findings cite rubric / privilege-rule sections; without citation, flagged as "rubric does not cover."
- **Privilege miss.** *Guard:* over-flag is the default posture.
- **Service implication.** *Guard:* every report and audit line includes `service_acknowledged: false`.
- **Grand-jury confidentiality.** *Guard:* grand-jury classifications route to restricted destination per firm procedure; not written to standard tracking.
- **Foreign-process miscategorization.** *Guard:* halt and escalate, not classify.
# Privilege flag rules (firm template)
The triage skill flags requests that likely overlap with privileged material. The rules are conservative — over-flag rather than under-flag, because missed privilege is harder to claw back than over-flagged scope is to negotiate.
## Privilege types covered
### Attorney-client privilege
Triggers a flag when a request covers any of:
- Communications with named in-house lawyers, by name OR by role ("legal department," "in-house counsel," "GC's office").
- Communications with named outside law firms, by name OR by role ("outside counsel," "litigation counsel," "regulatory counsel").
- "All communications" or "all email" requests where any of the firm's lawyers may be in the corpus (almost always true).
- "Legal advice on X" or "legal opinions regarding Y" requests.
Recommended response posture: privilege log preparation; assertion under FRE 502 (federal) or state equivalent.
### Work-product doctrine (Hickman v. Taylor / FRCP 26(b)(3))
Triggers a flag when a request covers any of:
- "Litigation strategy memos" or "case analysis."
- "Drafts" of pleadings, motions, briefs.
- Materials prepared "in anticipation of litigation" — the test is whether the document was prepared because of the prospect of litigation, not in the ordinary course of business.
- Investigations conducted by counsel (internal investigations).
- Counsel's notes from meetings or interviews.
Recommended response posture: Rule 26(b)(3) objection; if non-opinion work product, may produce on substantial-need showing but withhold opinion work product.
### Joint-defense / common-interest privilege
Triggers a flag when:
- The firm has joint-defense agreements covering the matter (counsel maintains the JDA registry).
- Communications cross between the firm and joint-defense counterparts about shared legal strategy.
Recommended response posture: assert with JDA cited; may need to redact or withhold depending on scope.
### Settlement communications (FRE 408)
Triggers a flag when a request covers:
- "Settlement discussions" or "negotiations to resolve."
- Communications with mediators or settlement counsel.
- Communications labeled "FRE 408" or "settlement-confidential."
Recommended response posture: object under FRE 408 (admissibility) and any applicable confidentiality agreement.
### Self-evaluation / critical analysis privilege
Limited recognition. Triggers a flag in jurisdictions that recognize it for:
- Internal audit findings (limited recognition under HHS regs for healthcare).
- Peer-review of medical care (state-by-state recognition).
- Self-critical environmental audits (limited recognition in some states).
Recommended response posture: counsel to research jurisdictional recognition before asserting.
### Other firm-specific privileges
Add per the firm's industry and jurisdiction:
- **Clergy** — for religious institutions.
- **Doctor-patient** — for healthcare providers (HIPAA also implicates).
- **Academic peer review** — for universities.
- **Trade secret** — protection from disclosure (not strictly privilege but commonly grouped).
## Flag severity
Each flag carries a severity:
- **High** — privilege is clearly implicated; assertion is the default.
- **Medium** — privilege may be implicated; counsel reviews scope.
- **Low** — privilege exposure is theoretical; counsel notes for awareness.
The triage report's privilege-flag section orders by severity.
## Per-flag guard language
Every flag in the triage output pairs with a recommended action. Sample guard language:
### Attorney-client (high)
> Request {N} covers "{quoted phrase}" which captures attorney-client communications. Recommend privilege log preparation per the firm's standard practice and assertion under FRE 502. Privilege log entries should include date, sender, recipient, subject (general), basis for privilege.
### Work-product (high)
> Request {N} covers "{quoted phrase}" which is core work product (litigation strategy / case analysis prepared because of prospect of litigation). Recommend Rule 26(b)(3) objection. Opinion work product (counsel's mental impressions) should be withheld absolutely; non-opinion work product may be produced on substantial-need showing.
### Joint-defense (medium)
> Request {N} may overlap with material covered by the joint-defense agreement with {counterpart}. Counsel to review JDA scope before producing or asserting.
### Settlement (medium)
> Request {N} covers settlement discussions in the {matter} dispute. Recommend objection under FRE 408 and any confidentiality terms in the settlement-discussion agreement.
## What the skill does NOT do
- Does NOT decide which privileges to assert (that's counsel's call).
- Does NOT prepare the privilege log (that's a separate workflow / paralegal task).
- Does NOT redact documents (that happens during production prep).
- Does NOT advise on waiver risk (counsel evaluates whether prior disclosures waived privilege).
The skill's role is to flag — comprehensively, conservatively, with paired guards — so counsel doesn't miss exposure during triage.
## Updating these rules
When the firm encounters a new privilege issue, or when a court ruling shifts the landscape:
1. Add the new trigger to the relevant section.
2. Document the citation (case law, statute, ethics opinion).
3. Set severity per counsel's assessment.
4. Bump the file's version line. Audit-log captures the SHA per triage.