This page lists three turns, the messages you send to the AI one after another in the same chat, and then a check of the answer. Keep it open next to your chat. Each turn shows the next thing to paste, with the values you entered already filled in. Nothing is sent from this page, and your conversation stays in the AI tool you are using.
Who receives it; this drives which scenarios appear.
What the company does and what kinds of legally sensitive topics come up.
The recurring situations in which this audience emails or DMs legal.
Where your people sit, and whether any non-US privilege rules reach them.
One name, one channel, one number: the whole point of the last line.
Watch for these throughout
In-house communications are protected only where the predominant purpose is legal advice. Business advice from the legal team is not privileged, and this one-pager can make readers think otherwise if you are not careful with the examples.
Privilege for in-house counsel varies sharply outside the US. The EU gives communications with in-house lawyers materially less protection in competition matters. A US-drafted one-pager sent to non-US staff can teach the wrong rule.
Work-product protection is a separate doctrine with different scope and timing. If litigation is anticipated, do not let this document stand in for that conversation.
Audits, root-cause documents, and self-critical analyses need deliberate framing to be privileged. Say so before an engineering team writes a postmortem assuming it is protected.
The model will produce clean-sounding privilege rules it cannot support. Check every legal statement in the document before it goes to hundreds of employees who will treat it as authoritative.