lawve-ai/disclosure-list-andrew-bird
Works out which documents you have to hand over to the other side in a civil case in England & Wales, and builds the formal list. The part it gets right that trips people up is which disclosure regime applies — Practice Direction 57AD (the Disclosure Pilot, now permanent in the Business and Property Courts, with its Models A–E) or standard disclosure under CPR Part 31 everywhere else. It picks the regime, chooses a Model per issue, structures the Disclosure Review Document, and drafts the disclosure certificate for the party to sign personally. Built for litigation juniors, in-house counsel, and small teams without a precedent bank. Use when the user says 'disclosure list', 'PD 57AD', 'Model C', 'extended disclosure', 'List of Documents', 'N265', or needs to work out what must be disclosed.
npx skills add https://github.com/lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills --skill disclosure-list-andrew-bird
| Court / Division | Regime |
|---|---|
| Business and Property Courts (Commercial, Chancery, TCC, Circuit Commercial, IP, Financial List) | PD 57AD (Disclosure Pilot — now permanent) |
| Other High Court divisions, County Court, fast track and multi-track | CPR Part 31 |
| Small claims track | CPR 27.4 (limited disclosure on directions) |
| Family proceedings | FPR — separate regime not covered here |
After Initial Disclosure (limited — documents relied on plus those required for the other party to understand the case), the parties agree or the court orders Extended Disclosure by issue, using one or more of:
| Model | What it requires |
|---|---|
| A | Disclosure confined to known adverse documents (no further search). |
| B | Limited disclosure — documents necessary to enable other parties to understand the case being advanced. No proactive search beyond what was done for Initial Disclosure. |
| C | Request-based search — disclosure of specific documents or narrow classes specified by request. The narrowest "real search" model. |
| D | Narrow search-based disclosure — search for documents likely to be relevant + adverse documents found. The PD 57AD equivalent of standard disclosure. |
| E | Wide search — like Model D but including the train-of-enquiry approach (Peruvian Guano style). Available only where necessary to fairly resolve issues, generally where strong reasons. |
Selection happens via the Disclosure Review Document (DRD) — a structured negotiation document parties complete and exchange.
Disclose:
The duty extends to documents in the party's control (in physical possession, with right to possession, or right to inspect: CPR 31.8).
B&P Courts → PD 57AD. Otherwise CPR 31.
Each party serves with Statements of Case: documents relied on + those required for other parties to understand. List of Issues for Disclosure follows in the DRD.
A focused list — not the same as pleaded issues. Should be issues that disclosure will actually inform.
Each issue gets a model. Default to Model C (request-based) where possible; Model D for broader issues; Model E only in exceptional cases.
Who held the relevant documents; where the data lives; what platforms (Outlook / Gmail / Teams / Slack / WhatsApp / dataroom / paper).
Privileged documents are listed by description, not produced. Redaction of privileged parts is permissible.
CPR 31 — N265 List of Documents (or equivalent):
Three parts:
Plus the Disclosure Statement (signed personally — CPR 31.10) certifying the search and the duty.
PD 57AD — Disclosure Certificate
Signed by the party (not the solicitor) certifying the search complied with the order and disclosure obligations under the PD. Like the CPR 31.10 statement, any draft Disclosure Certificate the skill produces is scaffolding, not an executed certificate — carry the same DRAFT banner across, do not present the certification as made, and the party must sign it personally only once the search has actually been performed.
Produce the list using the sections below. Render it as the finished List of Documents — do not echo this template back, and do not invent documents, custodians, or sources to fill a section. If a part has nothing in it, say so. Every document listed must trace to a real input the user supplied; the skill scopes and drafts the list, it does not generate the documents that go in it.
| ID | Date | Description | Custodian / source |
|---|---|---|---|
| C/1 | [date] | [description] | [custodian] |
| ID | Date | Description | Ground |
|---|---|---|---|
| C/P/1 | [date] | [generic description] | Legal advice privilege |
| C/P/2 | [date] | [description] | Litigation privilege |
| C/P/3 | [date] | [description] | Without prejudice |
| Date | Description | When and how parted with | Whereabouts believed |
|---|---|---|---|
> DRAFT — NOT AN EXECUTED STATEMENT. This is scaffolding for a Disclosure Statement, not a completed one. Before it can be filed: the statement must be reviewed; the search it describes must actually have been performed; and it must be signed personally by the party under CPR 31.10. Do not file as generated. Do not present the blanks as filled, and do not assert the search was carried out — only the signing party can certify that. Render this with the banner attached and the certification text shown as wording the party must adopt for themselves, not as a statement the model is making.
I, [name], state:
Signed: [party — sign personally, CPR 31.10]
Date: [date]
[Complete — list of documents already provided.]
| No. | Issue | Proposed Model | Reasons |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | [issue 1] | C | [...] |
| 2 | [issue 2] | D | [...] |
[Table — agreed or proposed per issue.]
[Per CPR Part 47 / PD 57AD requirement.]
[REGIME — confirm court division][PRIVILEGE — flagged but not yet reviewed][GDPR — cross-border transfer requires Art 6/49 basis][SME VERIFY — Model selection per issue]Take lawve-ai/disclosure-list-andrew-bird from the repository into ~/.claude/skills for personal
use, or into .claude/skills inside a project.
The agent identifies a skill by the name field in its header. Two skills with the
same name cannot sit side by side — one of them will be ignored.