Privilege Log Generator
When preparing privilege logs for discovery responses, one of the most tedious but critical litigation tasks.
A privilege log is the document that lets you withhold attorney-client communications and work product from production while satisfying your disclosure obligations under FRCP 26(b)(5) or its state analog. The catch is that each entry must say enough to justify the privilege claim, yet not so much that the description itself reveals the protected substance. Drafting dozens or hundreds of these entries by hand is among the most tedious tasks in litigation.
This is well suited to Claude. Given the document metadata, the privilege holders, and the applicable rule, it produces consistent, properly formatted entries that establish the attorney-client or work-product elements on the face of the log using accepted formulations. Batching similar documents keeps your phrasing uniform across the log, which is exactly what reviewing courts and opposing counsel scrutinize.
Treat the result as a starting draft, not a finished log. Every entry must be reviewed by counsel for inadvertent disclosure, accurate metadata, and a genuine privilege basis before service. A careless description can waive the very privilege you are asserting. This page offers practice guidance, not legal advice, and the responsible attorney owns the final log.
The Prompt
Draft privilege log entries for the documents below. <documents> [FOR EACH DOCUMENT: DATE, TYPE, AUTHOR, ALL RECIPIENTS AND CCS (WITH ROLES), AND A SHORT DESCRIPTION OR THE TEXT] </documents> Case: [CASE NAME AND NUMBER] Attorneys and clients: [LIST EVERY ATTORNEY (IN-HOUSE AND OUTSIDE) AND THE CLIENT ENTITIES] Third parties appearing on documents: [NAME AND ROLE OF EACH] Applicable rule: [e.g., FRCP 26(b)(5)(A) or state equivalent] Agreed log format: [DOCUMENT-BY-DOCUMENT / CATEGORICAL, per the ESI protocol or order] For each document, create a log entry with: 1. Document date 2. Document type (email, memo, letter, notes) 3. Author 4. Recipient(s) and CC, marking each attorney (for example, with an asterisk) 5. Subject matter description: specific enough to support the privilege claim but not so detailed as to waive it 6. Privilege(s) asserted (attorney-client, work product); treat common interest as a protection against waiver where it applies, not as a standalone privilege 7. Basis for privilege: one sentence explaining why it applies Descriptions must: - Identify the general subject matter without revealing the substance of the communication - Establish the attorney-client or work product elements on the face of the log - Use formulations like "Communication between [client] and [attorney] seeking/providing legal advice regarding [general topic]" - Never disclose the actual legal advice or mental impressions Flag for attorney review any document a non-lawyer third party received, and any entry where the privilege basis is unclear. Use only the metadata I provide. If something I need is missing or ambiguous, say so instead of assuming. Do not invent facts, citations, or quotations; mark anything you are unsure of [VERIFY]. This is a draft for attorney review.
Example Output
A formatted privilege log table with one row per document, containing all required fields per the applicable rules.
Illustrative example — names, figures, and facts are fictional.
PRIVILEGE LOG: Acme Corp. v. Brightline LLC, No. 26-1234 (D. Nev.) Withheld pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5) Entry 1 Date: 02/14/2026 Type: Email Author: Maria Chen (in-house counsel, Acme Corp.) Recipients: James Okafor (CEO); cc: R. Patel, Esq. (outside counsel) Description: Email communication between client and counsel providing legal advice regarding contract-termination strategy. Privilege: Attorney-Client Basis: Confidential communication seeking and conveying legal advice from counsel. Entry 2 Date: 02/18/2026 Type: Memorandum Author: R. Patel, Esq. (outside counsel) Recipients: Litigation file (not circulated externally) Description: Attorney memorandum prepared in anticipation of litigation analyzing potential breach claims. Privilege: Work Product Basis: Document reflects counsel's mental impressions and was prepared because of anticipated litigation. Entry 3 Date: 02/20/2026 Type: Email thread Author: Maria Chen (in-house counsel) Recipients: D. Reyes, Esq.* (co-defendant counsel; common-interest arrangement) Description: Communication among counsel pursuant to common-interest arrangement regarding shared defense. Privilege: Attorney-Client; Work Product (common-interest doctrine) Basis: Confidential exchange among counsel for parties sharing a common legal interest, in furtherance of a shared legal strategy; disclosure did not waive the underlying protections. * denotes an attorney. [NOTE: Confirm each attorney's role and each privilege basis before service.]
Tips
- •Review every entry for inadvertent disclosure: a poorly worded description can waive privilege.
- •Identify every attorney on the log (for example, with an asterisk legend) and the role of each third party, since non-lawyer recipients can defeat privilege.
- •Check your ESI protocol or scheduling order for the agreed log format and timing; categorical logs may be permitted.
- •Batch similar documents together when drafting descriptions for consistency.
- •Treat the output as a draft for attorney review; verify every citation, quotation, date and figure against the source before relying on it.
Frequently Asked Questions
When do I need to prepare a privilege log?
Whenever you withhold otherwise-responsive documents on privilege or work-product grounds, FRCP 26(b)(5) (and most state equivalents) requires you to describe them in enough detail for the opposing party to assess the claim. Prepare the log alongside your production so withheld documents are accounted for, typically by the response deadline or per any agreed protocol.
Can I serve Claude's privilege log as-is?
No. The output is a first draft. An attorney must verify every entry's metadata, confirm a genuine privilege basis, and check each description for inadvertent disclosure before service. A description that reveals the substance of a communication can waive privilege. Treat the draft as a time-saver for formatting and consistency, not a substitute for review.
How do I get the most reliable entries?
Provide complete, accurate metadata for each document (date, author, all recipients, type), name the specific privilege holders and the applicable rule, and batch similar documents together so phrasing stays consistent. Specify your jurisdiction's expectations. The more precise your inputs, the closer the draft entries will be to defensible final language.
What are the accuracy and ethics risks?
The two real risks are over-disclosure (a description that waives privilege) and over-designation (logging non-privileged documents, which can draw sanctions). Claude can also misread relationships or roles, so verify those. Under ABA Formal Opinion 512, you must supervise the output and protect confidentiality; never rely on AI alone for a privilege determination.
Related Prompts
Get New Prompts Like This Every Week
Join the free Claude for Lawyers newsletter — weekly prompts, tutorials, and practice-specific guides.