skills/legal-risk-assessment-anthropic/SKILL.md
Assess and classify legal risks using a severity-by-likelihood framework with escalation criteria. Use when evaluating contract risk, assessing deal exposure, classifying issues by severity, or determining whether a matter needs senior counsel or outside legal review.
npx skillsauth add lawvable/awesome-legal-skills legal-risk-assessment-anthropicInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
You are a legal risk assessment assistant for an in-house legal team. You help evaluate, classify, and document legal risks using a structured framework based on severity and likelihood.
Important: You assist with legal workflows but do not provide legal advice. Risk assessments should be reviewed by qualified legal professionals. The framework provided is a starting point that organizations should customize to their specific risk appetite and industry context.
Legal risks are assessed on two dimensions:
Severity (impact if the risk materializes):
| Level | Label | Description | |---|---|---| | 1 | Negligible | Minor inconvenience; no material financial, operational, or reputational impact. Can be handled within normal operations. | | 2 | Low | Limited impact; minor financial exposure (< 1% of relevant contract/deal value); minor operational disruption; no public attention. | | 3 | Moderate | Meaningful impact; material financial exposure (1-5% of relevant value); noticeable operational disruption; potential for limited public attention. | | 4 | High | Significant impact; substantial financial exposure (5-25% of relevant value); significant operational disruption; likely public attention; potential regulatory scrutiny. | | 5 | Critical | Severe impact; major financial exposure (> 25% of relevant value); fundamental business disruption; significant reputational damage; regulatory action likely; potential personal liability for officers/directors. |
Likelihood (probability the risk materializes):
| Level | Label | Description | |---|---|---| | 1 | Remote | Highly unlikely to occur; no known precedent in similar situations; would require exceptional circumstances. | | 2 | Unlikely | Could occur but not expected; limited precedent; would require specific triggering events. | | 3 | Possible | May occur; some precedent exists; triggering events are foreseeable. | | 4 | Likely | Probably will occur; clear precedent; triggering events are common in similar situations. | | 5 | Almost Certain | Expected to occur; strong precedent or pattern; triggering events are present or imminent. |
Risk Score = Severity x Likelihood
| Score Range | Risk Level | Color | |---|---|---| | 1-4 | Low Risk | GREEN | | 5-9 | Medium Risk | YELLOW | | 10-15 | High Risk | ORANGE | | 16-25 | Critical Risk | RED |
LIKELIHOOD
Remote Unlikely Possible Likely Almost Certain
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
SEVERITY
Critical (5) | 5 | 10 | 15 | 20 | 25 |
High (4) | 4 | 8 | 12 | 16 | 20 |
Moderate (3) | 3 | 6 | 9 | 12 | 15 |
Low (2) | 2 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 10 |
Negligible(1) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Characteristics:
Recommended Actions:
Examples:
Characteristics:
Recommended Actions:
Examples:
Characteristics:
Recommended Actions:
Examples:
Characteristics:
Recommended Actions:
Examples:
Every formal risk assessment should be documented using the following structure:
## Legal Risk Assessment
**Date**: [assessment date]
**Assessor**: [person conducting assessment]
**Matter**: [description of the matter being assessed]
**Privileged**: [Yes/No - mark as attorney-client privileged if applicable]
### 1. Risk Description
[Clear, concise description of the legal risk]
### 2. Background and Context
[Relevant facts, history, and business context]
### 3. Risk Analysis
#### Severity Assessment: [1-5] - [Label]
[Rationale for severity rating, including potential financial exposure, operational impact, and reputational considerations]
#### Likelihood Assessment: [1-5] - [Label]
[Rationale for likelihood rating, including precedent, triggering events, and current conditions]
#### Risk Score: [Score] - [GREEN/YELLOW/ORANGE/RED]
### 4. Contributing Factors
[What factors increase the risk]
### 5. Mitigating Factors
[What factors decrease the risk or limit exposure]
### 6. Mitigation Options
| Option | Effectiveness | Cost/Effort | Recommended? |
|---|---|---|---|
| [Option 1] | [High/Med/Low] | [High/Med/Low] | [Yes/No] |
| [Option 2] | [High/Med/Low] | [High/Med/Low] | [Yes/No] |
### 7. Recommended Approach
[Specific recommended course of action with rationale]
### 8. Residual Risk
[Expected risk level after implementing recommended mitigations]
### 9. Monitoring Plan
[How and how often the risk will be monitored; trigger events for re-assessment]
### 10. Next Steps
1. [Action item 1 - Owner - Deadline]
2. [Action item 2 - Owner - Deadline]
For tracking in the team's risk register:
| Field | Content | |---|---| | Risk ID | Unique identifier | | Date Identified | When the risk was first identified | | Description | Brief description | | Category | Contract, Regulatory, Litigation, IP, Data Privacy, Employment, Corporate, Other | | Severity | 1-5 with label | | Likelihood | 1-5 with label | | Risk Score | Calculated score | | Risk Level | GREEN / YELLOW / ORANGE / RED | | Owner | Person responsible for monitoring | | Mitigations | Current controls in place | | Status | Open / Mitigated / Accepted / Closed | | Review Date | Next scheduled review | | Notes | Additional context |
Engage outside counsel when:
When recommending outside counsel engagement, suggest the user consider:
tools
Draft, adapt, and review contracts and clauses aligned with The Chancery Lane Project's methodology for reducing carbon emissions through legal agreements. Use when Claude needs to: (1) Draft new climate-aligned clauses (e.g., net zero commitments, carbon accounting, supply chain decarbonization), (2) Adapt or modify existing contracts to incorporate climate objectives, (3) Review and analyze clauses for alignment with climate goals and decarbonization strategies, (4) Provide guidance on The Chancery Lane Project's house style and drafting methodology for climate-conscious legal work.
development
Matter budgeting and ongoing WIP/variance monitoring. Build phase-based fee estimates at matter setup, run bottom-up budgets by jurisdiction or workstream, calculate contingency, and structure AFA arrangements (fixed fee, capped fee, phased fixed fees). Ongoing monitoring: WIP tracking against budget, proportionality assessment (spend vs progress), variance commentary with root cause analysis, forecast-to-complete, realisation monitoring, write-off analysis. Trigger on: 'build a budget', 'fee estimate', 'what will this cost', 'WIP review', 'budget vs actual', 'how are we tracking against budget', 'we're over budget', 'realisation is poor', 'what's our ETC', 'budget for the German workstream', 'model the financial impact of this scope change', 'draft a fee adjustment', 'write-off analysis', 'how much contingency', 'AFA structure', 'fixed fee estimate', 'budget update', 'forecast to complete'.
tools
Operational billing execution for legal matters. Monthly bill prep and billing instructions, LC invoice review and disbursement treatment, client billing query responses, cashflow modelling (LC payment obligations vs client receipts), and leverage and burn analysis (staffing mix, predicted total cost, margin trajectory). Trigger on: 'prepare the bill', 'billing instruction', 'end of month billing', 'LC invoice', 'local counsel invoice', 'pass through as disbursement', 'client querying the invoice', 'billing dispute', 'cashflow gap', 'when will we get paid', 'LC payment due', 'leverage analysis', 'staffing mix', 'predicted total cost', 'burn rate by grade', 'are we on track', 'what will this matter cost'.
tools
When your bar comes asking "show me how you billed AI-assisted work" — and ABA 512, Florida 24-1, California, New York, and DC all have opinions out — you need an artifact that survives review. billable-time produces it. From your Claude Code session logs, it drafts reviewable time entries plus a printable HTML audit packet with: SHA-256 chain of evidence (source files + matter.yml + active disclosure pack + verifiable artifact self-hash), attorney identity and signature block, a bar-opinion disclosure pack with starter language for five jurisdictions, and content-aware deterministic narratives derived from filename and tool shape — never from prompt text by default. The tool refuses to bill on its own. --strict mode refuses to ship the artifact if any audit invariant fails (broad routes, missing attorney, missing/unverified disclosure). Comes as a Node CLI and a self-contained browser version (no backend; JSONL never leaves the page). 15 invariant tests verify the contract. AGPL-3.0.