Workflow template for legal and contracts
Privilege log entry check
Before a draft privilege log goes to review counsel, the paralegal gets an entry-by-entry check against counsel’s approved format and role map, and a list of logged documents’ attachments with no entry. It checks metadata only: review counsel makes every privilege call and writes or approves every description.
This workflow template prepares legal work for a lawyer to review. It gives no legal advice and has not been reviewed by a lawyer. A lawyer decides and signs.
Add it to a workflow in the Fully Powered Planner, beside the teams and roles that will run it. Book a fit call
The outcome
Review counsel opens a log whose housekeeping has already been checked line by line. Every entry has been held up against the review platform’s own record: the document ID, the date, the type, the author, every recipient down to the BCC line, each person’s role as counsel’s role map records it, the treatment counsel designated, and each attachment tied to its parent. The email logged with an entry for only one of its two attachments, the memo designated for withholding that has no entry, the person on a BCC line nobody has mapped: each one is found before the log leaves the firm, and each one is a line for counsel to answer.
The line it holds is the one that matters. The check gives no legal advice and decides nothing about legal meaning, merit, validity, privilege, conflicts or deadlines. It never says or hints whether a record is privileged, never treats a lawyer’s name as a reason for anything, never reads a description for meaning, never judges or copies it, and never copies a subject line or a word of any document. It never states, counts or estimates the date a log is due. It never names a case, statute or rule from memory; an authority anyone raises is left to be verified by the lawyer. It edits, serves, sends, files, signs and calendars nothing. Everything it produces is a draft for review counsel, with a line for each point counsel must confirm.
Who starts the work, and when
The paralegal or litigation support specialist assembling the log starts it once review counsel has designated the withheld and redacted records and a draft log exists, and runs it again after each round of corrections. Review counsel, the responsible attorney for the review, decides and signs. In a company running its own review with no lawyer of its own, that is outside counsel, and the check is addressed to outside counsel, never to the business as an answer.
It is not for deciding what to withhold, writing descriptions, reviewing documents or serving the log.
What they supply
- The draft log, exported as a spreadsheet, with the columns counsel’s format names.
- The designation export from the review platform: each designated record and the rest of its family, with ID, family, parent, attachment count, date, type, author, recipients and counsel’s designation.
- Counsel’s role map: every person who may appear on the log, with the role counsel has given them.
- Counsel’s approved log format: the columns and which are required, the ID pattern, the date form, how names and counsel are marked, the permitted treatments and basis codes, and how attachments are logged.
- The matter, the case number and the name of review counsel.
The workflow template ships no log format, no role list and no rules about privilege. It uses what the firm and its review counsel supply, with a few fallback defaults for layout (dates written year-month-day, names separated by semicolons, a star after counsel’s names) that counsel’s format overrides. If the format does not say how attachments are logged, it stops and asks. If a column heading does not match, it stops and asks which column holds what.
What comes out
One draft check, headed as a draft for review counsel:
- Entry by entry: each entry marked complete or incomplete, with one plain line per problem: what the log says and what the export, format or role map says. Values are metadata only; a description shows only as filled or blank.
- Attachments of logged documents with no entry: every attachment of a logged document that has no entry of its own, with its date, type, author and designation as the export records them. One with no designation recorded is marked for review counsel to decide; the check never says whether it belongs on the log.
- Designated records with no entry, entries with no matching designation, and people not on the role map.
- Review counsel to confirm: a line to confirm, decide or supply for every problem found, and the lines saying every privilege call and description is counsel’s and the log is approved for service.
- Check: the counts, and a sum proving every designated record is either on the log or on one of the lists.
The paralegal checks the metadata lines, then gives the log and the check to review counsel. Counsel answers every line and approves the log. Only then do people serve it.
An invented example
Illustrative example with invented data. Bramblecote Ashby LLP, its people, its client Quillmere Pumps Ltd, the other side Corvane Metals Inc., the Superior Court of Eastmere, the case, the log, the export, the role map and the approved log format below are all invented. The format and basis codes are one invented review counsel's choices for one invented matter. They are not any real court's requirements and must not be used for a real log.
The paralegal's five inputs come first, in full, then what the workflow template prepares. In the draft log, each filled Description cell holds review counsel's own text. It is shown here as [counsel's text], because the check reads only whether that cell is filled and never reads, judges or copies what it says.
Input 1: the request
Sent by Tomas Wrenfield, paralegal, on Tuesday 10 November 2026.
Quillmere: draft 3 of our privilege log is attached, with today's
designation export from the review platform, Ilse's approved log format
and the role map. Please run the entry check before the log goes to her.
Matter: Quillmere Pumps Ltd v. Corvane Metals Inc., case no.
EM-CV-26-04417, Superior Court of Eastmere. We act for Quillmere.
Review counsel: Ilse Marrable.
Tomas Wrenfield, paralegal
Input 2: counsel's approved log format
Bramblecote Ashby LLP · Privilege log format · Quillmere v. Corvane
Approved by: Ilse Marrable, review counsel. Dated: 2 November 2026.
Changes go through her.
Columns, in this order. Every column is filled, except where a line
below says it may be blank.
Entry No | Doc ID | Parent Doc ID | Doc Date | Doc Type | Author | To |
CC | BCC | Treatment | Basis Code | Description
Doc ID: QPL- followed by seven digits, as assigned by the review platform.
Parent Doc ID: the parent's Doc ID for an attachment; blank for a parent.
Doc Date: YYYY-MM-DD, as the review platform holds it. Never estimated.
Names: as written on the role map, separated by "; ". Anyone the role map
marks Counsel = Y is written with " *" after the name, in every column.
To, CC and BCC: each blank only when the record has no one in that field.
Treatment: Withheld (export: Withhold) or Redacted (export: Redact).
Basis Code: 01, 02 or 01+02, as defined in my code list. No other code.
Description: written or approved by review counsel only. Staff check only
that it is filled.
Attachments: each attachment is its own entry.
Input 3: the role map
Quillmere v. Corvane · Role map
Approved by: Ilse Marrable, 2 November 2026.
Name | Email | Organisation | Role | Counsel
Gideon Pask | gpask@quillmere.example | Quillmere Pumps | Operations director | N
Ruth Calloway | rcalloway@quillmere.example | Quillmere Pumps | In-house counsel | Y
Joel Fenner | jfenner@quillmere.example | Quillmere Pumps | Finance manager | N
Mara Quist | mquist@quillmere.example | Quillmere Pumps | Quality lead | N
Ilse Marrable | imarrable@bramblecote.example | Bramblecote Ashby | Outside counsel | Y
Input 4: the designation export
Quillmere v. Corvane · Designation export · exported 10 November 2026
Doc ID | Family ID | Parent Doc ID | Attachment Count | Doc Date | Doc Type | Author | To | CC | BCC | Designation
QPL-0001021 | F-0021 | | 2 | 2026-03-04 | Email | Gideon Pask | Ruth Calloway | Joel Fenner | | Withhold
QPL-0001022 | F-0021 | QPL-0001021 | 0 | 2026-03-03 | Spreadsheet | Joel Fenner | | | | Withhold
QPL-0001023 | F-0021 | QPL-0001021 | 0 | 2026-03-02 | PDF | Mara Quist | | | | Withhold
QPL-0001040 | F-0040 | | 0 | 2026-03-11 | Email | Ruth Calloway | Gideon Pask; Mara Quist | | | Redact
QPL-0001057 | F-0057 | | 1 | 2026-04-02 | Email | Ilse Marrable | Ruth Calloway | Gideon Pask | | Withhold
QPL-0001058 | F-0057 | QPL-0001057 | 0 | 2026-04-01 | Word document | Ilse Marrable | | | |
QPL-0001066 | F-0066 | | 0 | 2026-04-15 | Email | Joel Fenner | Ruth Calloway | | Dana Wilk | Withhold
QPL-0001071 | F-0071 | | 0 | 2026-05-06 | Memo | Ruth Calloway | Gideon Pask | | | Withhold
QPL-0001080 | F-0080 | | 0 | 2026-05-20 | Email | Gideon Pask | Mara Quist | | | Produce
Input 5: the draft log, version 3
Quillmere v. Corvane · Privilege log · draft 3 · 10 November 2026
Entry No | Doc ID | Parent Doc ID | Doc Date | Doc Type | Author | To | CC | BCC | Treatment | Basis Code | Description
1 | QPL-0001021 | | 2026-03-04 | Email | Gideon Pask | Ruth Calloway * | Joel Fenner | | Withheld | 01 | [counsel's text]
2 | QPL-0001022 | QPL-0001021 | 2026-03-30 | Spreadsheet | Joel Fenner | | | | Withheld | 01 | [counsel's text]
3 | QPL-0001040 | | 2026-03-11 | Email | Ruth Calloway * | Gideon Pask; Mara Quist | | | Redacted | 01 | [counsel's text]
4 | QPL-0001057 | | 2026-04-02 | Email | Ilse Marrable * | Ruth Calloway * | Gideon Pask | | Withheld | 02 |
5 | QPL-0001066 | | 2026-04-15 | Email | Joel Fenner | Ruth Calloway | | | Withheld | 01 | [counsel's text]
6 | QPL-0001080 | | 2026-05-20 | Email | Gideon Pask | Mara Quist | | | Withheld | 03 | [counsel's text]
What the workflow template prepares
A short note to the paralegal, then the check.
Tomas, the check of draft 3 is below. No stop applied: every header matched the approved format and the defaults, and I read all 6 entries and all 9 export records. Two entries are complete. Four are incomplete, with 7 issues between them. Two attachments of logged emails have no entry, and one memo designated Withhold has no entry.
Lines you can check yourself against the export and the role map: entry 2's date, and entry 5's missing BCC and missing counsel marker. The rest are Ilse Marrable's: the blank description on entry 4, the code 03 on entry 6, entry 6 being logged although the export says Produce, a role for Dana Wilk, and the three records with no entry: QPL-0001023 and QPL-0001071, which the export designates Withhold, and QPL-0001058, which has no designation recorded.
I have changed nothing in the log, sent, served, filed, signed or calendared nothing, and made no privilege call. The log is not served until Ilse Marrable approves it.
DRAFT PRIVILEGE LOG CHECK · FOR REVIEW COUNSEL TO CONFIRM
Metadata only. Not legal advice. Nothing is decided about legal meaning,
merit, validity, privilege, conflicts or deadlines; no privilege call is
made or suggested.
Nothing has been changed, sent, served, filed, signed or calendared.
Matter: Quillmere Pumps Ltd v. Corvane Metals Inc., EM-CV-26-04417
Log checked: Quillmere v. Corvane · Privilege log · draft 3 ·
10 November 2026, 6 entries
Prepared for: Ilse Marrable, review counsel, to confirm
Run by: Tomas Wrenfield, paralegal
MEASURED AGAINST
- Approved log format: Bramblecote Ashby LLP · Privilege log format ·
Quillmere v. Corvane, dated 2 November 2026, approved by Ilse Marrable
- Role map: Quillmere v. Corvane · Role map, approved by Ilse Marrable
on 2 November 2026, 5 people
- Designation export: Quillmere v. Corvane · Designation export,
exported 10 November 2026, 9 records:
6 Withhold, 1 Redact, 1 Produce, 1 none recorded
A. ENTRY-BY-ENTRY CHECKLIST
Entry 1 · QPL-0001021 · Withheld · COMPLETE · family: 1 of 2 attachments
have no entry (B1)
- No issues.
Entry 2 · QPL-0001022 · Withheld · INCOMPLETE: 1 issue
- R2, Doc Date: log 2026-03-30; export 2026-03-03.
Entry 3 · QPL-0001040 · Redacted · COMPLETE
- No issues.
Entry 4 · QPL-0001057 · Withheld · INCOMPLETE: 1 issue · family: 1 of 1
attachments have no entry (B2)
- R9, Description: log blank; format requires it.
Entry 5 · QPL-0001066 · Withheld · INCOMPLETE: 3 issues
- R4, BCC: log blank; export Dana Wilk.
- R5, To: log Ruth Calloway, no " *"; role map Counsel Y.
- R5, BCC: Dana Wilk in the export; not on the role map (E1).
Entry 6 · QPL-0001080 · Withheld · INCOMPLETE: 2 issues
- R7, Treatment: log Withheld; export Produce (D1).
- R8, Basis Code: log 03; format permits 01, 02, 01+02.
B. ATTACHMENTS OF LOGGED PARENTS WITH NO ENTRY
B1. QPL-0001023 · attachment to QPL-0001021 (entry 1) · family F-0021
Export: 2026-03-02 · PDF · author Mara Quist · designation
Withhold. No entry in the log.
B2. QPL-0001058 · attachment to QPL-0001057 (entry 4) · family F-0057
Export: 2026-04-01 · Word document · author Ilse Marrable ·
designation none recorded: for review counsel to decide. No entry in
the log.
C. DESIGNATED RECORDS WITH NO ENTRY
C1. QPL-0001071 · 2026-05-06 · Memo · author Ruth Calloway · designation
Withhold. No entry in the log.
D. ENTRIES WITH NO MATCHING DESIGNATION
D1. Entry 6 · QPL-0001080 · logged Withheld · export: Produce. See entry 6.
E. PEOPLE NOT ON THE ROLE MAP
E1. Dana Wilk · BCC of QPL-0001066 in the export · no role recorded. See
entry 5.
REVIEW COUNSEL TO CONFIRM
[ ] Entry 2, Doc Date: log 2026-03-30; export 2026-03-03.
Confirm: ____
[ ] Entry 4, Description: blank.
Write or approve: ____
[ ] Entry 5, BCC: Dana Wilk is in the export and not on the log.
Confirm: ____
[ ] Entry 5, To: Ruth Calloway has no " *"; role map Counsel Y.
Confirm: ____
[ ] Entry 5, BCC / E1: Dana Wilk is not on the role map.
Supply: ____
[ ] Entry 6, Treatment / D1: logged Withheld; export Produce.
Decide: ____
[ ] Entry 6, Basis Code: 03 is not on the approved list.
Supply: ____
[ ] B1: QPL-0001023, designated Withhold, has no entry.
Confirm: ____
[ ] B2: QPL-0001058, no designation recorded, has no entry.
Decide: ____
[ ] C1: QPL-0001071, designated Withhold, has no entry.
Confirm: ____
[ ] Every privilege call, designation, basis code and description on the
log is review counsel's. Confirm: ____
[ ] Log approved for service. Approved by: ____ Date: ____
CHECK
- Headers: log matches the approved format; export matches; role map
matches.
- Entries: 6 read. 2 complete, 4 incomplete, 7 issues.
- Designated records (Withhold or Redact): 7. With an entry: 5.
Designated records in B or C: 2. 5 + 2 = 7.
- Other export records: 1 Produce, 1 none recorded.
- Attachments of logged parents with no entry: 2, of which 1 with no
designation recorded. Designated records with no entry: 1. Entries
with no matching designation: 1. People not on the role map: 1.
- Roles are taken from the role map only. None is inferred from a name,
title, department or email address.
- No description, subject line or document text is copied into this check.
Reviewed by: ____________ Date: ________
Until review counsel signs, this is a draft and the log is not approved.
Two lines are worth a second look. Entry 1 is complete on its own, yet its family is not: the export gives the email two attachments and the log carries one. And QPL-0001058 has no designation at all, so the check lists it as an attachment with no entry and no designation recorded, and leaves to Ilse Marrable both what it is and whether it goes on the log. The export names outside counsel as its author, and the check draws nothing from that.
Tomas Wrenfield checks the metadata lines against the export and the role map, then gives the log and the check to Ilse Marrable. She confirms, decides or supplies each line, writes or approves the description for entry 4, and approves the log. The check is run again on the corrected draft, and only after her approval do people at the firm serve the log.
Where it fits
- Legal and contracts: a log is a record counsel signs, and this check holds its metadata against the review platform and counsel’s approved format before counsel sees it.
- Law firms, in litigation groups where logs run long and each entry is checked against the review platform and counsel’s format before an attorney signs.
- Established businesses, where one senior paralegal knows how the firm checks a log and nobody has written it down.
- Growth & scaling, when reviews grow faster than the team that builds the logs.
It sits beside court-order deadline notice preparation, which turns an entered court order into a draft notice for the attorney to confirm, and outgoing work sign-off log, which tracks the attorney’s sign-off before the log leaves the firm.
What has to change for your company
Review counsel’s format and role map are the measure, and they are yours. Counsel decides the columns, which are required, how a document ID looks, how dates and names are written, how counsel are marked, which treatments and basis codes are allowed, and whether an attachment gets its own entry. Decide who keeps the role map and how aliases are added, which saved search in your review platform produces the export, and whether staff may correct dates and names from the export before counsel sees the check.
We sit with the paralegal who builds your logs and the attorney who signs them, write down how a log is really checked, and set it up in the AI product the firm has approved: ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot or Gemini. Confirm with your own policies, and with counsel on any protective order, that the log and export may be used there.
What has been checked
Fully Powered AI wrote this workflow template from its own published map of law-firm work, and it was editorially reviewed on 11 November 2026. It has not been reviewed by a lawyer. It was tried on its invented example in Claude on 11 November 2026, in a run after the last of that day’s revisions, followed by seven tests that asked for a verdict, a case, a due date and advice for a business with no lawyer, and that planted an instruction in the log, an instruction in the role map and an invented rule. The record of that run is published with the template, and the instructions and output format published are the ones that were run. It has not yet been tested in a client environment, and it has not yet been tested as a packaged version in ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot or Gemini.
Testing at your firm means running it on a past log counsel has already approved, with problems planted in advance: an attachment with no entry, a transposed date, a dropped BCC, a missing counsel marker, an entry for a record designated for production, a renamed column, a description holding an instruction to the assistant. Review counsel checks every line before anyone relies on it. Pilot acceptance-test preparation builds that set, and what we test before we call an AI workflow ready describes the record we keep.
Who decides
Your people keep
- Every privilege call
- Writing or approving every description
- What to withhold
- Whether the log is approved for service
It does not
- Gives no legal advice
- Decides nothing about legal meaning, merit, validity, privilege, conflicts or deadlines
- Sends, files, signs and calendars nothing
- Never says whether a record is privileged
- Never copies a subject line or a word of any document
- Never states, counts or estimates the date a log is due
Questions people ask
Who is it for?
The paralegal or litigation support specialist assembling the log starts it, and review counsel, the responsible attorney for the review, decides and signs.
What do I need to supply?
The draft log as a spreadsheet, the designation export from the review platform, counsel's role map, counsel's approved log format, and the matter, the case number and the name of review counsel.
What does it not do?
It gives no legal advice and decides nothing about legal meaning, merit, validity, privilege, conflicts or deadlines. Review counsel makes every privilege call, and a lawyer decides and signs.
What do I get?
One draft check for review counsel, entry by entry, with a list of attachments of logged documents that have no entry and a line to confirm for every problem found.
What has been checked?
It was tried on its invented example in Claude on 11 November 2026 and editorially reviewed. It has not been reviewed by a lawyer, and it has not yet been tested in a client environment.
The full workflow template
Everything above is the outline. The complete workflow template is the working version: the roles, the inputs, the procedure, the exceptions and stop conditions, the output format, the reviewer checklist, the acceptance tests, the instructions for an AI assistant and what to customize for your company. It comes with a download and the link to its folder in Fully Powered’s public repository.
Free with an account. Sign in by email: no password and no card.
Next step
Put this workflow template to work for your team: on your plan, or built with you in a sprint.
Build this in a sprint
In a sprint, Fully Powered adapts this workflow template to your rules, proves it on your own work and puts it in the hands of the roles that own it.
Two ways to begin: