without-prejudice-drafter-andrew-bird
From the author
Writes a settlement letter on the right footing — and warns you when marking it 'without prejudice' won't actually keep it out of court. A genuine settlement letter is normally protected (the judge can't see it), but only if the substance is a real attempt to settle, and even then there are exceptions. The skill picks the correct footing — without prejudice (WP), without prejudice save as to costs (WPSATC / Calderbank), or open — drafts the finished letter, and surfaces the Unilever v Procter & Gamble exceptions that get WP material admitted despite the label, which a plain template won't flag. Built for juniors and in-house counsel drafting a settlement or Calderbank offer who need the footing right the first time. Use when the user asks to draft a WP letter, a Calderbank, a settlement letter, or wants to know whether material is likely protected from disclosure.
Install
npx skills add lawve-ai/awesome-legal-skills --skill without-prejudice-drafter-andrew-bird -a claude-code
Installs to .claude/skills/without-prejudice-drafter-andrew-bird/ · Each command fetches the skill straight from GitHub with the open skills CLI.
No download: this skill’s licence (Custom or unclear) does not let us redistribute its files. The install commands fetch them from GitHub instead.
Want your agent to suggest skills while you type? See how to use skills from your IDE.
Safety checks on SKILL.md
No warnings.
Why 82
aiqbench computes the trust score from public signals. It is not a security audit, so read a skill before you install it.
Similar skills
Closest to this one by what they do and when they are used.
- settlement-agreement-review-andrew-birdlawve-ai/awesome-legal-skillsReviews or drafts the agreement that pays an employee to settle their claims — and flags the statutory conditions that decide whether it actually binds them. Works under s.203 ERA 1996 for England & Wales. Flags apparent s.203 condition gaps for a solicitor to confirm (writing, specific complaints, independent adviser, identification, insurance, statement of conditions), drafts the substantive terms (sum, tax characterisation, confidentiality, references, restrictive covenants, indemnities), and surfaces enforceability risks. Does not rule on validity and is not legal advice. Use when the user says 'review this settlement agreement', 'draft a settlement agreement', 'compromise agreement' (old term), or asks whether an agreement is binding.Engineering★ 888
- cpr-letter-drafter-andrew-birdlawve-ai/awesome-legal-skillsWrites the formal letter you send before suing someone in a civil case in England & Wales — the Letter Before Claim that starts the pre-action clock. The part it gets right is which pre-action protocol applies — debt, professional negligence, housing disrepair, personal injury, or the default Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct — each of which has its own rules a generic letter misses (the 30-day debt window, the professional-negligence preliminary-notice step). It also flags the limitation deadline for a solicitor to confirm rather than stating it as fact. Built for litigation juniors, in-house counsel, and small firms without a precedent to copy. Use when the user says 'draft an LBC', 'letter before claim', 'pre-action letter', 'pre-action protocol', or needs to start the pre-action clock before issuing a civil claim. Verify the current protocol before sending.Writing★ 888
- unfair-dismissal-screener-andrew-birdlawve-ai/awesome-legal-skillsScreens a dismissal — proposed or already done — against the unfair dismissal framework for England & Wales, and shows where it is exposed. Structures the qualifying-service question, the automatically-unfair categories (no qualifying period), and a Burchell / Polkey / band-of-reasonable-responses analysis for a solicitor to verify — it does not determine fairness. Surfaces specific procedural risks. Use when the user says 'is this unfair', 'screen this dismissal', 'ordinary unfair dismissal', 'automatic unfair dismissal', or wants a structured fairness review before or after dismissal.Planning★ 888
- disclosure-list-andrew-birdlawve-ai/awesome-legal-skillsWorks 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.Engineering★ 888
- founder-agreement-drafting-stephane-boghossianlawve-ai/awesome-legal-skillsA drafting-and-review copilot for a founders' / co-founders' agreement — the terms fixing equity, vesting, IP, roles, control, deadlock, and departure between cofounders. Jurisdiction-agnostic, anchored on the Delaware C-corp default. Two modes: DRAFT (intake → equity & vesting → clauses → blocker triage → pre-signature check) and REVIEW (audit an existing agreement against an 18-clause checklist and red-flag scan). It handles the highest-dispute terms first-class: the equity split as documented reasoning (not a fake calculator), reverse vesting and the 83(b) clock, present-tense IP assignment (the Stanford v. Roche trap), leaver buyback and dead equity, and the deadlock clause most tools omit. It drafts for the venture, never one founder against another. Not legal advice.Legal★ 888
- anti-defensive-writingKiterlin/anti-defensive-writingReduce defensive writing in drafts and revisions by removing unnecessary caveats, disclaimers, hedges, apology-like framing, negative self-limiting statements, and over-explanations while preserving necessary scope, accuracy, safety, legal, ethical, and methodological limits. Use when drafting or revising academic writing, papers, essays, abstracts, introductions, contribution statements, discussions, conclusions, technical explanations, grant writing, product writing, policy writing, professional reports, or any text the user wants to be clearer, stronger, more direct, more concise, more confident, less verbose, less caveated, less apologetic, or less defensive.Writing★ 1.3K
Ratings & reviews
—
no reviews
Tried this skill? Rate it to help others. Sign in
Discussion
Join the discussion. Sign in