> ## Documentation Index
> Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://vaquill.ai/docs/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.
# Privilege Log Builder
> Turn a document population into an FRCP 26(b)(5) privilege log plus an attorney work-product memo flagging what needs sign-off
**Best for:** building a defensible FRCP 26(b)(5) privilege log and an attorney work-product memo flagging which entries need partner sign-off, including partial-privilege redactions, third-party break risks, and work-product opinion claims, **before** service.
Upload the documents the discovery team is reviewing for privilege. You get the log you serve and, separately, the analysis you keep.
| | |
| -------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Category | Litigation |
| Jurisdiction | US |
| Practice areas | Litigation, civil, commercial, employment, IP litigation, white collar |
| Runtime | 8-40 minutes |
| Queue | Long-running (two-hour ceiling) |
## What you need
| Slot | Required | Count | What goes in it |
| -------------------------------------- | -------- | ------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| **Documents to analyse for privilege** | Yes | 1-1000 | Emails, memos, contracts, meeting notes, attorney communications: the candidate privileged documents. PDF or DOCX, text-searchable. |
## Inputs
| Field | Type | Required | What it changes |
| ------------- | --------- | -------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Matter / case | Text | No | The file title. Privilege logs become discoverable artifacts in their own right, so pick a stable, professional name. |
| Case caption | Long text | No | Pasted-in caption. Appears in the served log header and the internal memo. |
## How it runs
A matrix-review pipeline: `prepare → extract → wait for extraction → normalize and score → synthesize → render`.
Each document is analysed for privilege type and basis, for third-party recipients that would break privilege, for whether the claim is fact or opinion work product, and for whether a partial redaction is the right call rather than a full withhold. The synthesis rolls those into portfolio-level risk patterns before the render stage writes the log and the memos.
## What you get
| Artifact | Format | Contents |
| ---------------------------------- | ------ | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| **Privilege Log** | XLSX | FRCP 26(b)(5) compliant log served on opposing counsel: a caption sheet plus one row per withheld document. |
| **Privilege Analysis Memo** | DOCX | Attorney-only. Portfolio summary of third-party privilege break risks, partial-privilege redactions, work-product opinion claims, and the entries recommended for partner sign-off. |
| **Per-Document Privilege Detail** | DOCX | One section per reviewed document: privilege type, basis, third-party considerations, and review recommendation. |
| **Citations and Authorities Used** | DOCX | Deduplicated authority appendix. |
The Privilege Analysis Memo and the Per-Document Detail are work product. Only the XLSX log is meant to leave your side.
## What this will not do
* Serve the log on opposing counsel.
* Replace partner sign-off on any partial-privilege redaction call or third-party-break risk.
* Authenticate the documents. It analyses file metadata and text; it does not verify Bates ranges against the production set.
* Adjudicate the privilege call if challenged on motion. The log is your starting position, not a defense against in-camera review.
* Identify privileges peculiar to state or sector law: state attorney-client variations, deliberative-process scope, sectoral self-critical analysis.
## Related
Produces a narrower privilege log scoped to one response set.
Finding the candidate documents in the first place.