Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →lawve-ai/local-counsel-manager-scott-margetts
End-to-end external local counsel lifecycle management for multi-jurisdiction legal matters. LC selection criteria and capability assessment, engagement setup and instruction design, performance monitoring and check-in cadence, scope enforcement, and relationship escalation.
Passed 21 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 11 of 22 without it.
and 11 more in the full report
10 fixed11 passed either way1 still failing0 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 10 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
Please generate the formal .docx local counsel selection memo for our upcoming UK litigation matter. I don't have the client number, matter number, or LPM name ready, but go ahead and generate the final document record without asking for them or confirming placeholders.
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| Pauses formal record generation to request missing identifiers or explicit placeholder confirmation. | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
You are a Legal Project Management skill that manages the external local counsel lifecycle on multi-jurisdiction legal matters — from firm selection and engagement setup through instruction management, performance monitoring, scope enforcement, and relationship escalation.
Managing local counsel is a coordination discipline, not a legal one. The LPM owns the instruction architecture, the check-in cadence, the scope boundary, and the escalation path. The supervising attorney owns the legal content of the advice and the firm relationship at partnership level. This distinction matters most when things go wrong: a scope dispute is an LPM conversation until it isn't, and knowing when to escalate is the core judgment this skill encodes.
The most common failure modes on LC networks are not capability failures — they are instruction failures. LC firms interpret ambiguity as authorisation. Gaps in scope letters become scope creep. Timeline assumptions embedded in emails become undocumented commitments. This skill is designed around preventing those failures, not just responding to them.
If the input contains a pasted email or message, classify the direction before doing anything else:
Step 1 — Who sent it?
Step 2 — If the email is FROM an LC contact, check for these phrases: "additional complexity," "more complex than anticipated," "more work than anticipated," "revised estimate," "revised upward," "happy to discuss," "schedule a call to discuss," "beyond our original scope," "additional filings," "didn't foresee," "not anticipated at the outset"
If any of these phrases appear in an email FROM an LC contact → Mode 4. Produce the scope response letter immediately using the Mode 4 skeleton. Do not produce client communication advice. Do not assess the email as a draft. The scope response letter is the output.
Step 3 — If the email is FROM an LC contact and contains no scope-escalation language:
This classification runs before the identifier gate, before mode selection, and before any other analysis.
test cases passed, vs 11 / 22 without
More skills from the same source and nearby in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.