From legal-clinic-uk
First draft of a common UK clinic document — practice-area templates (ET1 claim narratives, housing possession defences, protective injunction applications, demand letters, asylum statements of evidence), jurisdiction-aware formatting for England & Wales / Scotland / Northern Ireland, explicitly a starting point requiring student analysis and supervising solicitor/barrister review. Use when a student needs a first draft of a claim, defence, letter, petition, statement, or other clinic document.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/legal-clinic-uk:draft [document type — e.g., 'possession-defence', 'et1-narrative', 'asylum-statement', 'demand-letter'][document type — e.g., 'possession-defence', 'et1-narrative', 'asylum-statement', 'demand-letter']The summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
1. Load `~/.claude/plugins/config/uk-legal-plugins/legal-clinic-uk/CLAUDE.md` → practice-area templates, jurisdiction (E&W / Scotland / NI), local rules, supervision style.
~/.claude/plugins/config/uk-legal-plugins/legal-clinic-uk/CLAUDE.md → practice-area templates, jurisdiction (E&W / Scotland / NI), local rules, supervision style.[FACT NEEDED], [VERIFY], [UNCERTAIN] flags inline./legal-clinic-uk:draft possession-defence
/legal-clinic-uk:draft et1-narrative
/legal-clinic-uk:draft asylum-statement
Students spend enormous time on first drafts of documents where the educational value is in the analysis and strategy, not in formatting a claim form or writing the correct tribunal header. This skill produces the first draft from case notes and practice-area templates so the student's time goes to the thinking.
Every draft is explicitly a starting point. Not final work product. The student analyses, revises, and the supervising solicitor or barrister reviews before anything goes anywhere.
~/.claude/plugins/config/uk-legal-plugins/legal-clinic-uk/CLAUDE.md → practice areas, practice-area templates, jurisdiction (E&W / Scotland / NI and specific court/tribunal), supervision style.
Case notes or intake summary for the facts.
Read the supervisor guide for this practice area at ~/.claude/plugins/config/uk-legal-plugins/legal-clinic-uk/guides/<practice-area>.md. Check the pedagogy_posture setting:
guide (default): Produce the structure and the checklist. Ask the student to draft each section. Give feedback on their draft (register, reading level, required elements, what they missed). Offer to fill a section only when the student has tried once.assist: Produce the work product. Flag items for student review. The student edits and learns by reviewing.teach: Don't produce the work product. Ask the student to draft it. Give feedback. Ask leading questions when they're stuck. Only show a model paragraph after two attempts.If no guide exists, use guide. Whatever the posture, the output always includes: "Pedagogy mode: [assist/guide/teach] — set by your supervisor's guide."
Jurisdiction assumption. The draft assumes the jurisdiction, court, and local rules set in CLAUDE.md. Procedure, form formats, and substantive rules vary materially between E&W, Scotland, and Northern Ireland, and between different courts and tribunals within each jurisdiction. If the matter is in a different court, tribunal, or jurisdiction, confirm with your supervisor before relying on any format, deadline, or argument in the draft.
Match the request to the clinic's template set. Common set by practice area:
| Practice area | Documents |
|---|---|
| Housing (E&W) | Possession defence (Section 21 / Section 8), disrepair claim / counterclaim, deposit protection letter (Housing Act 2004), demand letter, housing possession court application |
| Employment (E&W) | ET1 claim narrative (unfair dismissal, discrimination, redundancy, wages), ET3 response narrative, grievance letter, appeal against dismissal letter, subject access request |
| Immigration / Asylum | Statement of evidence / personal statement for asylum claim, representations to the Home Office, First-tier Tribunal (IAC) appeal skeleton argument, subject access request to UKVI, GDPR subject access request |
| Family (E&W) | Non-molestation order application, occupation order application (FL401), child arrangements statement (C100), financial statement (Form E), position statement for hearing |
| Consumer / Debt (E&W) | Section 77/78 request (Consumer Credit Act 1974), FCA complaint letter, response to county court claim, set-aside of default judgment application, response to statutory demand |
| Benefits | Mandatory reconsideration request, First-tier Tribunal (SSCS) appeal grounds, DWP correspondence |
| General | Letter before action, subject access request, formal complaint to regulator |
If the requested document isn't in the template set: "The clinic's templates don't include [X]. I can attempt a draft from general principles, but flag this heavily — it hasn't been tuned for your practice area or jurisdiction. Ask [Supervisor] if there's an existing template."
Read the intake summary or case notes. For each fact the document needs: do we have it?
| Document needs | Have? | Source |
|---|---|---|
| [fact] | ✓ / ✗ | [intake / client doc / need to get] |
Missing required facts → don't guess. Mark them: [FACT NEEDED: client's entry date — get from BRP or ask client].
Per ~/.claude/plugins/config/uk-legal-plugins/legal-clinic-uk/CLAUDE.md jurisdiction:
England & Wales:
[VERIFY FORMAT: rules not loaded — confirm against current court/tribunal practice directions]Scotland:
Northern Ireland:
Use the practice-area template. Fill what can be filled from facts. Leave placeholders explicit — never fill with plausible-sounding invention.
Everywhere the draft makes a legal assertion: that assertion is a hypothesis the student verifies, not a conclusion the draft guarantees. Mark accordingly.
Three kinds of flags, in-line:
[FACT NEEDED: ...] — the document needs a fact the case notes don't have[VERIFY: ...] — a legal or factual assertion that needs checking before this is filed — use OSCOLA-formatted citation starting points where possible[UNCERTAIN: ...] — the skill is genuinely unsure and says so rather than guessingFiling a document with a court or tribunal is a consequential action. The gate is the supervision workflow in ## Supervision style in ~/.claude/plugins/config/uk-legal-plugins/legal-clinic-uk/CLAUDE.md. Court and tribunal filings always route through the supervising solicitor or barrister before filing, regardless of the supervision-style choice. [SRA-CODE] [BSB-HANDBOOK]
Per ~/.claude/plugins/config/uk-legal-plugins/legal-clinic-uk/CLAUDE.md supervision style:
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
AI-ASSISTED DRAFT — REQUIRES STUDENT ANALYSIS AND
SUPERVISING SOLICITOR/BARRISTER REVIEW
This is a starting point, not final work product.
Students are not solicitors or barristers. Every [VERIFY] and
[FACT NEEDED] flag must be resolved before filing.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
[The document — in the practice-area template format, jurisdiction-aware,
with flags inline. OSCOLA-formatted citation starts where applicable.]
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
## Student review checklist
Before showing this to [Supervisor]:
- [ ] Read the whole thing. Does it say what you want it to say?
- [ ] Every fact: is it accurate per the client's actual documents, not just the intake notes?
- [ ] Every [VERIFY] flag: resolved with research (Westlaw UK / LexisNexis UK / BAILII / legislation.gov.uk) or struck
- [ ] Every [FACT NEEDED] flag: filled with verified information or the section removed
- [ ] Legal theory: is this the right argument? Are there better ones? (That's your analysis, not the draft's.)
- [ ] Jurisdiction: form format, service requirements, court/tribunal rules correct per current practice directions — `[CPR-RULE]` as applicable
- [ ] OSCOLA citations checked: every case and statute cited in the draft must be verified before it appears in a filed document
- [ ] [Supervision step per CLAUDE.md style]
## What this draft does NOT do
- It does not decide strategy. The draft follows the most common approach for this document type — you decide if that's right for this client.
- It does not verify its own legal assertions. Every legal conclusion above is a hypothesis until you research it.
- It does not file itself. [Supervisor] reviews, you file per clinic procedure.
---
**Before this leaves the clinic.** This is a student draft for supervising solicitor/barrister review, not a final letter, filing, or form. Filing it with a court or tribunal, or sending it to a client or opposing party, has legal consequences for the client. A licensed supervising solicitor or barrister reviews, edits, and signs off before it leaves the clinic. Strip the AI-assisted draft header only after that sign-off. Do not file or send this draft without supervisor approval.
*SRA Code of Conduct 2019 and BSB Handbook: supervision requirements apply to all work produced by or under the direction of a solicitor or barrister. This draft is designed to be supervised and verified — it is not designed to be trusted without that.* `[SRA-CODE]` `[BSB-HANDBOOK]`
npx claudepluginhub uk-agents/uk-legal-plugins --plugin legal-clinic-ukProvides UI/UX resources: 50+ styles, color palettes, font pairings, guidelines, charts for web/mobile across React, Next.js, Vue, Svelte, Tailwind, React Native, Flutter. Aids planning, building, reviewing interfaces.
Fetches up-to-date documentation from Context7 for libraries and frameworks like React, Next.js, Prisma. Use for setup questions, API references, and code examples.