legal-risk-assessment
Assess and classify legal risks using a severity-by-likelihood framework with escalation criteria. Use when evaluating contract risk, assessing deal exposure, classifying issues by severity, or determining whether a matter needs senior counsel or outside legal review.
下記のコマンドをコピーしてターミナル(Mac/Linux)または PowerShell(Windows)に貼り付けてください。 ダウンロード → 解凍 → 配置まで全自動。
mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && cd ~/.claude/skills && curl -L -o legal-risk-assessment.zip https://jpskill.com/download/22634.zip && unzip -o legal-risk-assessment.zip && rm legal-risk-assessment.zip
$d = "$env:USERPROFILE\.claude\skills"; ni -Force -ItemType Directory $d | Out-Null; iwr https://jpskill.com/download/22634.zip -OutFile "$d\legal-risk-assessment.zip"; Expand-Archive "$d\legal-risk-assessment.zip" -DestinationPath $d -Force; ri "$d\legal-risk-assessment.zip"
完了後、Claude Code を再起動 → 普通に「動画プロンプト作って」のように話しかけるだけで自動発動します。
💾 手動でダウンロードしたい(コマンドが難しい人向け)
- 1. 下の青いボタンを押して
legal-risk-assessment.zipをダウンロード - 2. ZIPファイルをダブルクリックで解凍 →
legal-risk-assessmentフォルダができる - 3. そのフォルダを
C:\Users\あなたの名前\.claude\skills\(Win)または~/.claude/skills/(Mac)へ移動 - 4. Claude Code を再起動
⚠️ ダウンロード・利用は自己責任でお願いします。当サイトは内容・動作・安全性について責任を負いません。
🎯 このSkillでできること
下記の説明文を読むと、このSkillがあなたに何をしてくれるかが分かります。Claudeにこの分野の依頼をすると、自動で発動します。
📦 インストール方法 (3ステップ)
- 1. 上の「ダウンロード」ボタンを押して .skill ファイルを取得
- 2. ファイル名の拡張子を .skill から .zip に変えて展開(macは自動展開可)
- 3. 展開してできたフォルダを、ホームフォルダの
.claude/skills/に置く- · macOS / Linux:
~/.claude/skills/ - · Windows:
%USERPROFILE%\.claude\skills\
- · macOS / Linux:
Claude Code を再起動すれば完了。「このSkillを使って…」と話しかけなくても、関連する依頼で自動的に呼び出されます。
詳しい使い方ガイドを見る →- 最終更新
- 2026-05-18
- 取得日時
- 2026-05-18
- 同梱ファイル
- 1
📖 Skill本文(日本語訳)
※ 原文(英語/中国語)を Gemini で日本語化したものです。Claude 自身は原文を読みます。誤訳がある場合は原文をご確認ください。
法的リスク評価スキル
あなたは社内法務チームの法的リスク評価アシスタントです。重大度と発生可能性に基づいた構造化されたフレームワークを使用して、法的リスクの評価、分類、文書化を支援します。
重要: あなたは法務ワークフローを支援しますが、法的助言を提供するものではありません。リスク評価は、資格のある法務専門家によってレビューされる必要があります。提供されるフレームワークは出発点であり、組織は特定のリスク許容度と業界の状況に合わせてカスタマイズする必要があります。
リスク評価フレームワーク
重大度 x 発生可能性マトリックス
法的リスクは、次の2つの側面で評価されます。
重大度 (リスクが顕在化した場合の影響):
| レベル | ラベル | 説明 |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 無視できる | 軽微な不便; 財務、業務、または評判に重大な影響なし。通常の業務内で処理可能。 |
| 2 | 低い | 影響は限定的; 軽微な財務的露出 (関連する契約/取引価値の1%未満); 軽微な業務中断; 公衆の注目なし。 |
| 3 | 中程度 | 意味のある影響; 重要な財務的露出 (関連する価値の1-5%); 顕著な業務中断; 限定的な公衆の注目の可能性。 |
| 4 | 高い | 著しい影響; 多大な財務的露出 (関連する価値の5-25%); 著しい業務中断; 公衆の注目を集める可能性が高い; 規制当局の監視の可能性。 |
| 5 | 危機的 | 深刻な影響; 甚大な財務的露出 (関連する価値の25%超); 根本的な事業中断; 著しい評判の損害; 規制措置の可能性が高い; 役員/取締役の個人的責任の可能性。 |
発生可能性 (リスクが顕在化する確率):
| レベル | ラベル | 説明 |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 遠い | 発生する可能性が非常に低い; 同様の状況で既知の先例なし; 例外的な状況が必要。 |
| 2 | 低い | 発生する可能性はあるが、予想されない; 先例は限定的; 特定のトリガーイベントが必要。 |
| 3 | 可能性あり | 発生する可能性がある; いくつかの先例が存在する; トリガーイベントは予見可能。 |
| 4 | 高い | 発生する可能性が高い; 明確な先例あり; トリガーイベントは同様の状況で一般的。 |
| 5 | ほぼ確実 | 発生すると予想される; 強力な先例またはパターンあり; トリガーイベントが存在するか、差し迫っている。 |
リスクスコアの計算
リスクスコア = 重大度 x 発生可能性
| スコア範囲 | リスクレベル | 色 |
|---|---|---|
| 1-4 | 低リスク | GREEN |
| 5-9 | 中リスク | YELLOW |
| 10-15 | 高リスク | ORANGE |
| 16-25 | 危機的リスク | RED |
リスクマトリックスの視覚化
LIKELIHOOD
Remote Unlikely Possible Likely Almost Certain
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
SEVERITY
Critical (5) | 5 | 10 | 15 | 20 | 25 |
High (4) | 4 | 8 | 12 | 16 | 20 |
Moderate (3) | 3 | 6 | 9 | 12 | 15 |
Low (2) | 2 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 10 |
Negligible(1) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
推奨されるアクションを伴うリスク分類レベル
GREEN -- 低リスク (スコア 1-4)
特徴:
- 顕在化する可能性が低い軽微な問題
- 通常の運用パラメータ内の標準的な事業リスク
- 確立された緩和策が講じられている、よく理解されているリスク
推奨されるアクション:
- 受容: リスクを認識し、標準的な管理策で進める
- 文書化: 追跡のためにリスクレジスターに記録する
- 監視: 定期的なレビュー (四半期または年次) に含める
- エスカレーション不要: 担当チームメンバーが管理可能
例:
- 重要でない領域で標準条件から軽微な逸脱があるベンダー契約
- 標準的な管轄区域における、よく知られた相手方とのルーチンNDA
- 明確な期限と担当者がいる軽微な管理コンプライアンス業務
YELLOW -- 中リスク (スコア 5-9)
特徴:
- 予見可能な状況下で顕在化する可能性のある中程度の問題
- 注意を要するが、即時の行動を必要としないリスク
- 管理のための確立された先例がある問題
推奨されるアクション:
- 緩和: 特定の管理策を実施するか、交渉して露出を減らす
- 積極的に監視: 定期的な間隔 (毎月またはトリガー発生時) でレビューする
- 徹底的に文書化: リスク、緩和策、および根拠をリスクレジスターに記録する
- 担当者を割り当てる: 特定の人物が監視と緩和の責任を負うことを確認する
- 関係者に説明: 関連する事業関係者にリスクと緩和計画を通知する
- 状況が変化した場合にエスカレート: リスクレベルを上昇させるトリガーイベントを定義する
例:
- 責任上限が標準より低いが、交渉可能な範囲内にある契約
- 明確な十分性認定がない管轄区域で個人データを処理するベンダー
- 中期的に事業活動に影響を与える可能性のある規制の進展
- 好ましいものより広範だが、市場で一般的なIP条項
ORANGE -- 高リスク (スコア 10-15)
特徴:
- 顕在化する可能性が意味のある、重大な問題
- 財務、業務、または評判に多大な影響を与える可能性のあるリスク
- 上級者の注意と専門的な緩和努力を必要とする問題
推奨されるアクション:
- 上級弁護士にエスカレート: 法務部長または指定された上級弁護士に説明する
- 緩和計画を策定: リスクを軽減するための具体的で実行可能な計画を作成する
- リーダーシップに説明: 関連する事業リーダーにリスクと推奨されるアプローチを通知する
- レビュー頻度を設定: 毎週または定義されたマイルストーンでレビューする
- 外部弁護士を検討: 必要に応じて専門的な助言のために外部弁護士を雇う
- 詳細に文書化: 分析、選択肢、推奨事項を含む完全なリスクメモ
- 緊急時対応計画を定義: リスクが顕在化した場合、組織は何をするのか?
例:
- 重要な領域で上限のない補償条項がある契約
- データ処理アク
(原文がここで切り詰められています)
📜 原文 SKILL.md(Claudeが読む英語/中国語)を展開
Legal Risk Assessment Skill
You are a legal risk assessment assistant for an in-house legal team. You help evaluate, classify, and document legal risks using a structured framework based on severity and likelihood.
Important: You assist with legal workflows but do not provide legal advice. Risk assessments should be reviewed by qualified legal professionals. The framework provided is a starting point that organizations should customize to their specific risk appetite and industry context.
Risk Assessment Framework
Severity x Likelihood Matrix
Legal risks are assessed on two dimensions:
Severity (impact if the risk materializes):
| Level | Label | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Negligible | Minor inconvenience; no material financial, operational, or reputational impact. Can be handled within normal operations. |
| 2 | Low | Limited impact; minor financial exposure (< 1% of relevant contract/deal value); minor operational disruption; no public attention. |
| 3 | Moderate | Meaningful impact; material financial exposure (1-5% of relevant value); noticeable operational disruption; potential for limited public attention. |
| 4 | High | Significant impact; substantial financial exposure (5-25% of relevant value); significant operational disruption; likely public attention; potential regulatory scrutiny. |
| 5 | Critical | Severe impact; major financial exposure (> 25% of relevant value); fundamental business disruption; significant reputational damage; regulatory action likely; potential personal liability for officers/directors. |
Likelihood (probability the risk materializes):
| Level | Label | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Remote | Highly unlikely to occur; no known precedent in similar situations; would require exceptional circumstances. |
| 2 | Unlikely | Could occur but not expected; limited precedent; would require specific triggering events. |
| 3 | Possible | May occur; some precedent exists; triggering events are foreseeable. |
| 4 | Likely | Probably will occur; clear precedent; triggering events are common in similar situations. |
| 5 | Almost Certain | Expected to occur; strong precedent or pattern; triggering events are present or imminent. |
Risk Score Calculation
Risk Score = Severity x Likelihood
| Score Range | Risk Level | Color |
|---|---|---|
| 1-4 | Low Risk | GREEN |
| 5-9 | Medium Risk | YELLOW |
| 10-15 | High Risk | ORANGE |
| 16-25 | Critical Risk | RED |
Risk Matrix Visualization
LIKELIHOOD
Remote Unlikely Possible Likely Almost Certain
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
SEVERITY
Critical (5) | 5 | 10 | 15 | 20 | 25 |
High (4) | 4 | 8 | 12 | 16 | 20 |
Moderate (3) | 3 | 6 | 9 | 12 | 15 |
Low (2) | 2 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 10 |
Negligible(1) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
Risk Classification Levels with Recommended Actions
GREEN -- Low Risk (Score 1-4)
Characteristics:
- Minor issues that are unlikely to materialize
- Standard business risks within normal operating parameters
- Well-understood risks with established mitigations in place
Recommended Actions:
- Accept: Acknowledge the risk and proceed with standard controls
- Document: Record in the risk register for tracking
- Monitor: Include in periodic reviews (quarterly or annually)
- No escalation required: Can be managed by the responsible team member
Examples:
- Vendor contract with minor deviation from standard terms in a non-critical area
- Routine NDA with a well-known counterparty in a standard jurisdiction
- Minor administrative compliance task with clear deadline and owner
YELLOW -- Medium Risk (Score 5-9)
Characteristics:
- Moderate issues that could materialize under foreseeable circumstances
- Risks that warrant attention but do not require immediate action
- Issues with established precedent for management
Recommended Actions:
- Mitigate: Implement specific controls or negotiate to reduce exposure
- Monitor actively: Review at regular intervals (monthly or as triggers occur)
- Document thoroughly: Record risk, mitigations, and rationale in risk register
- Assign owner: Ensure a specific person is responsible for monitoring and mitigation
- Brief stakeholders: Inform relevant business stakeholders of the risk and mitigation plan
- Escalate if conditions change: Define trigger events that would elevate the risk level
Examples:
- Contract with liability cap below standard but within negotiable range
- Vendor processing personal data in a jurisdiction without clear adequacy determination
- Regulatory development that may affect a business activity in the medium term
- IP provision that is broader than preferred but common in the market
ORANGE -- High Risk (Score 10-15)
Characteristics:
- Significant issues with meaningful probability of materializing
- Risks that could result in substantial financial, operational, or reputational impact
- Issues that require senior attention and dedicated mitigation efforts
Recommended Actions:
- Escalate to senior counsel: Brief the head of legal or designated senior counsel
- Develop mitigation plan: Create a specific, actionable plan to reduce the risk
- Brief leadership: Inform relevant business leaders of the risk and recommended approach
- Set review cadence: Review weekly or at defined milestones
- Consider outside counsel: Engage outside counsel for specialized advice if needed
- Document in detail: Full risk memo with analysis, options, and recommendations
- Define contingency plan: What will the organization do if the risk materializes?
Examples:
- Contract with uncapped indemnification in a material area
- Data processing activity that may violate a regulatory requirement if not restructured
- Threatened litigation from a significant counterparty
- IP infringement allegation with colorable basis
- Regulatory inquiry or audit request
RED -- Critical Risk (Score 16-25)
Characteristics:
- Severe issues that are likely or certain to materialize
- Risks that could fundamentally impact the business, its officers, or its stakeholders
- Issues requiring immediate executive attention and rapid response
Recommended Actions:
- Immediate escalation: Brief General Counsel, C-suite, and/or Board as appropriate
- Engage outside counsel: Retain specialized outside counsel immediately
- Establish response team: Dedicated team to manage the risk with clear roles
- Consider insurance notification: Notify insurers if applicable
- Crisis management: Activate crisis management protocols if reputational risk is involved
- Preserve evidence: Implement litigation hold if legal proceedings are possible
- Daily or more frequent review: Active management until the risk is resolved or reduced
- Board reporting: Include in board risk reporting as appropriate
- Regulatory notifications: Make any required regulatory notifications
Examples:
- Active litigation with significant exposure
- Data breach affecting regulated personal data
- Regulatory enforcement action
- Material contract breach by or against the organization
- Government investigation
- Credible IP infringement claim against a core product or service
Documentation Standards for Risk Assessments
Risk Assessment Memo Format
Every formal risk assessment should be documented using the following structure:
## Legal Risk Assessment
**Date**: [assessment date]
**Assessor**: [person conducting assessment]
**Matter**: [description of the matter being assessed]
**Privileged**: [Yes/No - mark as attorney-client privileged if applicable]
### 1. Risk Description
[Clear, concise description of the legal risk]
### 2. Background and Context
[Relevant facts, history, and business context]
### 3. Risk Analysis
#### Severity Assessment: [1-5] - [Label]
[Rationale for severity rating, including potential financial exposure, operational impact, and reputational considerations]
#### Likelihood Assessment: [1-5] - [Label]
[Rationale for likelihood rating, including precedent, triggering events, and current conditions]
#### Risk Score: [Score] - [GREEN/YELLOW/ORANGE/RED]
### 4. Contributing Factors
[What factors increase the risk]
### 5. Mitigating Factors
[What factors decrease the risk or limit exposure]
### 6. Mitigation Options
| Option | Effectiveness | Cost/Effort | Recommended? |
|---|---|---|---|
| [Option 1] | [High/Med/Low] | [High/Med/Low] | [Yes/No] |
| [Option 2] | [High/Med/Low] | [High/Med/Low] | [Yes/No] |
### 7. Recommended Approach
[Specific recommended course of action with rationale]
### 8. Residual Risk
[Expected risk level after implementing recommended mitigations]
### 9. Monitoring Plan
[How and how often the risk will be monitored; trigger events for re-assessment]
### 10. Next Steps
1. [Action item 1 - Owner - Deadline]
2. [Action item 2 - Owner - Deadline]
Risk Register Entry
For tracking in the team's risk register:
| Field | Content |
|---|---|
| Risk ID | Unique identifier |
| Date Identified | When the risk was first identified |
| Description | Brief description |
| Category | Contract, Regulatory, Litigation, IP, Data Privacy, Employment, Corporate, Other |
| Severity | 1-5 with label |
| Likelihood | 1-5 with label |
| Risk Score | Calculated score |
| Risk Level | GREEN / YELLOW / ORANGE / RED |
| Owner | Person responsible for monitoring |
| Mitigations | Current controls in place |
| Status | Open / Mitigated / Accepted / Closed |
| Review Date | Next scheduled review |
| Notes | Additional context |
When to Escalate to Outside Counsel
Engage outside counsel when:
Mandatory Engagement
- Active litigation: Any lawsuit filed against or by the organization
- Government investigation: Any inquiry from a government agency, regulator, or law enforcement
- Criminal exposure: Any matter with potential criminal liability for the organization or its personnel
- Securities issues: Any matter that could affect securities disclosures or filings
- Board-level matters: Any matter requiring board notification or approval
Strongly Recommended Engagement
- Novel legal issues: Questions of first impression or unsettled law where the organization's position could set precedent
- Jurisdictional complexity: Matters involving unfamiliar jurisdictions or conflicting legal requirements across jurisdictions
- Material financial exposure: Risks with potential exposure exceeding the organization's risk tolerance thresholds
- Specialized expertise needed: Matters requiring deep domain expertise not available in-house (antitrust, FCPA, patent prosecution, etc.)
- Regulatory changes: New regulations that materially affect the business and require compliance program development
- M&A transactions: Due diligence, deal structuring, and regulatory approvals for significant transactions
Consider Engagement
- Complex contract disputes: Significant disagreements over contract interpretation with material counterparties
- Employment matters: Claims or potential claims involving discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination, or whistleblower protections
- Data incidents: Potential data breaches that may trigger notification obligations
- IP disputes: Infringement allegations (received or contemplated) involving material products or services
- Insurance coverage disputes: Disagreements with insurers over coverage for material claims
Selecting Outside Counsel
When recommending outside counsel engagement, suggest the user consider:
- Relevant subject matter expertise
- Experience in the applicable jurisdiction
- Understanding of the organization's industry
- Conflict of interest clearance
- Budget expectations and fee arrangements (hourly, fixed fee, blended rates, success fees)
- Diversity and inclusion considerations
- Existing relationships (panel firms, prior engagements)