Datasets:
uid string | dataset_id string | jurisdiction string | court_level string | year int64 | area_of_law string | pillar string | series string | input_document_context string | input_lawyer_involvement string | input_purpose_dominant_purpose string | input_circulation_and_disclosure_chain string | input_waiver_signals string | input_exception_signals string | question string | ground_truth_label string | ground_truth_rationale string | outcome_signal string | early_window_months int64 | source_citation string |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PR-TR-001 | legal-privilege-attachment-waiver-exception-coherence-v0.1 | UK | High Court | 2,023 | Commercial | adjudicative_process | 2C | Email from in-house counsel to CEO with external counsel cc | Lawyers included | Legal advice on claim strategy | Circulated to CEO and CFO only. No third party | No reliance in pleadings | No fraud cues | Is privilege position coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | coherent | Legal advice purpose and limited circulation support privilege. | stable | 0 | Synthetic |
PR-TR-002 | legal-privilege-attachment-waiver-exception-coherence-v0.1 | UK | High Court | 2,023 | Commercial | adjudicative_process | 2C | Email marked privileged about pricing strategy | No lawyer involved | Business planning only | Circulated to sales team and distributor | No waiver analysis | No exception cues | Is privilege position coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | incoherent | No legal purpose and wide third party circulation. | privilege_loss_risk | 0 | Synthetic |
PR-TR-003 | legal-privilege-attachment-waiver-exception-coherence-v0.1 | US | Federal | 2,022 | Employment | adjudicative_process | 2C | Attorney memo re litigation risk | External counsel authored | Legal advice and litigation prep | Shared internally on need-to-know basis | No reliance | No exception cues | Is privilege position coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | coherent | Clear attorney work product with controlled circulation. | stable | 0 | Synthetic |
PR-TR-004 | legal-privilege-attachment-waiver-exception-coherence-v0.1 | US | Federal | 2,022 | Employment | adjudicative_process | 2C | HR email summarizing counsel advice | Lawyer not copied | Mixed legal and business content | Forwarded to 25 managers | Company cites 'we acted on advice' in defence | No exception cues | Is privilege position coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | incoherent | Wide circulation and reliance signal creates waiver risk. | waiver_risk | 1 | Synthetic |
PR-TR-005 | legal-privilege-attachment-waiver-exception-coherence-v0.1 | UK | High Court | 2,021 | Commercial | adjudicative_process | 2C | Draft witness statement prepared by solicitors | Solicitors involved | Litigation prep | Shared with witness and counsel only | No waiver | No exception cues | Is privilege position coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | coherent | Litigation privilege supports draft and limited sharing. | stable | 0 | Synthetic |
PR-TR-006 | legal-privilege-attachment-waiver-exception-coherence-v0.1 | UK | High Court | 2,021 | Commercial | adjudicative_process | 2C | Draft witness statement sent to PR agency | Solicitors involved | Mixed litigation and reputational aims | Shared with external PR agency without protection | No waiver analysis | No exception cues | Is privilege position coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | incoherent | Third party disclosure likely breaks privilege claim. | privilege_loss_risk | 0 | Synthetic |
PR-TR-007 | legal-privilege-attachment-waiver-exception-coherence-v0.1 | EU | Commercial Court | 2,020 | Commercial | adjudicative_process | 2C | Email chain with lawyer advising on regulatory response | Lawyer involved | Legal advice on compliance response | Shared with compliance team only | No reliance | No exception cues | Is privilege position coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | coherent | Dominant legal advice and controlled sharing. | stable | 0 | Synthetic |
PR-TR-008 | legal-privilege-attachment-waiver-exception-coherence-v0.1 | EU | Commercial Court | 2,020 | Commercial | adjudicative_process | 2C | Message instructing concealment of documents | Lawyer copied but content suspicious | Purpose indicates concealment not advice | Shared with broad group | Waiver not relevant | Crime or fraud cues present | Is privilege position coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | incoherent | Exception cues defeat privilege and purpose not legitimate advice. | exception_risk | 0 | Synthetic |
PR-TR-009 | legal-privilege-attachment-waiver-exception-coherence-v0.1 | UK | Tribunal | 2,021 | Employment | adjudicative_process | 2C | Without prejudice settlement email between solicitors | Lawyers involved | Settlement negotiation | Shared only between parties' lawyers | No waiver | No exception cues | Is privilege position coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | coherent | Settlement privilege applies and handling is tight. | stable | 0 | Synthetic |
PR-TR-010 | legal-privilege-attachment-waiver-exception-coherence-v0.1 | UK | High Court | 2,023 | Commercial | adjudicative_process | 2C | Internal email citing legal advice as justification to terminate | Lawyer originally advised in separate memo | Business decision email referencing advice | Circulated widely and referenced in public announcement | Reliance signal strong | No exception cues | Is privilege position coherent. Answer coherent or incoherent. | incoherent | Reliance and broad disclosure create waiver risk. | waiver_risk | 1 | Synthetic |
What this dataset does
You receive
document context lawyer involvement purpose circulation chain waiver signals exception signals
You decide
coherent or incoherent
Daily use
privilege QC
waiver risk flag
exception cue flag
redaction triage
- Downloads last month
- 12