Privilege Log Example: Entry Fields, Drafts, and Risks

A privilege log example is easiest to understand as a single row of a spreadsheet. Here is what one well-formed entry looks like:

That one line carries everything Rule 26(b)(5) asks for: an identifier, a date, named participants with their roles, the type of document, a description specific enough to evaluate the claim without disclosing its substance, and the exact privilege being asserted.¹ The rest of this article walks through why each field is there, how to write the description, and how the format changes for emails, attachments, drafts, and redactions.

What Every Entry Must Contain

Rule 26(b)(5)(A) imposes two obligations on a party withholding otherwise discoverable material: expressly claim the privilege, and describe the withheld items in enough detail for the other side to assess the claim without seeing the protected content.¹ In practice, that translates into a fixed set of columns on every entry.

Document ID: A unique identifier (Bates number or production ID) for the withheld item. Essential for any log that may become the subject of a motion.
Date: When the document was created or the communication sent. The date places the item on the case timeline and can show whether the communication predates or follows the anticipation of litigation.
Author or sender: The person who created the document, with their title or role. Whether that person is an attorney, a client, or an outside consultant is central to the privilege analysis.
Recipients, including copies: Everyone who received the communication, with titles. A privileged email forwarded to someone outside the attorney-client relationship may lose its protection, and the recipient list is where that shows up.
Document type: Email, memo, letter, draft contract, spreadsheet, and so on.
Subject description: A short, substantive explanation of what the document concerns. This is the field that most often causes trouble.
Privilege basis: The specific protection claimed, such as attorney-client privilege, work product, or both.

Some districts require more. The District of Nebraska’s model progression order, for example, also asks for the document’s present location, the custodian, and the dates copies were received by each recipient.² Check your court’s local rules and any scheduling or ESI order before you settle on your columns.

A Sample Privilege Log Entry, Field by Field

Take the entry from the top of this article and read it one column at a time.

PRIV-00145. The identifier. Using a “PRIV” prefix separates withheld items from produced documents and lets opposing counsel refer to specific entries without ambiguity. Use the same convention throughout the log.

07/15/2025. The date the email was sent. For a document that is not a dated communication, use the creation date.

E. Smith, Esq. (Outside Counsel, Smith & Associates). Author with title and firm. “Esq.” signals attorney status, and the firm name tells the reader whose counsel this is. Across the full log, use the same form of the name every time. If this entry says “E. Smith, Esq.,” entry 300 should not switch to “Elizabeth Smith” or “Atty. Smith.”

J. Doe (General Counsel, Acme Corp.), K. Jones (Paralegal, Smith & Associates). Each recipient appears with a title. The paralegal’s inclusion is deliberate: a paralegal working on the matter for the firm is within the privilege, and the title explains why. If a recipient’s status is not obvious, the title does the explanatory work.

None. The CC field. Say “None” rather than leaving it blank, so the reader knows the field was addressed.

Email. Document type.

Discussion of draft settlement demand and litigation strategy for the pending Walker claim. The description identifies the subject matter (settlement demand, litigation strategy), ties it to a specific matter (the Walker claim), and makes clear this is legal work, without revealing the content of the advice or the strategy itself.

Attorney-Client Privilege; Work Product. Both protections are claimed. When work product is asserted, note whether the material is opinion work product (mental impressions, legal theories) or ordinary work product (factual investigation), because the two carry different levels of protection.

Writing the Subject Description

The description field is where logs most often fail. The task is to give opposing counsel enough context to evaluate the privilege claim without disclosing what you are protecting. Generic labels do not meet that standard. Courts have treated boilerplate descriptions as the equivalent of no description at all and ordered the privilege waived. In one federal case, a party asserted that documents were “protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrines” with no further detail and had not conducted a document-by-document review; the court found the assertion was made in bad faith and waived the privilege entirely.

Compare three versions of the same entry:

Too vague: “Privileged communication regarding legal matter.” Says nothing about who, what, or why.
Too revealing: “Email discussing attorney’s opinion that the company’s discharge of contaminants violates Section 301 of the Clean Water Act.” The content of the advice is on the page.
Effective: “Email from in-house counsel to VP of Operations providing legal advice regarding regulatory compliance obligations for the Springfield facility.” Participants, subject area, and the fact that legal advice is being given, with the substance kept back.

Match the description’s specificity to the document. A one-line email about a scheduling matter needs less than a ten-page memo analyzing a potential claim, but both need enough concrete detail that someone reading only the log can see why the privilege applies.

Emails, Attachments, and Drafts

Email threads cause more logging problems than any other category of material. A single chain can contain a dozen messages, each with different participants and a shifting mix of privileged and non-privileged content.

The safer practice is to log each distinct message in a thread as its own entry. A reply or forward changes the participant list, and that change can affect whether the privilege held at that step. If the original message was between attorney and client but a later forward added a non-attorney business colleague outside the representation, the forwarded version may not be protected. Separate entries make that analysis visible.

Attachments usually warrant their own entries as well. An attachment might be a pre-existing business record that carries no privilege even though the cover email does. Logging the two together obscures the distinction and invites a challenge. The exception is an attachment so intertwined with the communication that it cannot be meaningfully separated, such as a draft annotated with attorney comments that is the subject of the cover email.

For a draft document, the entry has to explain why the draft itself is protected. Labeling it “draft” is not enough. If the claim is work product, say the draft reflects attorney analysis, contains attorney revisions, or was prepared in anticipation of litigation. If the claim is attorney-client privilege, note that the draft was shared with counsel for the purpose of obtaining legal advice.

Redacted Documents

When a document is produced with portions redacted rather than withheld in full, the redacted content still belongs on the log. The description should explain what was redacted and why, not the subject of the document as a whole, since the opposing party already has the rest of it. Label the redacted portions on the face of the document (for example, “Redacted — Attorney-Client Privilege”) so the reader can see where the redactions fall. Some courts and stipulated protocols require redacted items to appear on a separate redaction log rather than mixed with fully withheld documents.

Categorical Entries as an Alternative

In cases with thousands of potentially privileged documents, logging each item individually can become prohibitively expensive. Courts increasingly allow categorical entries that group documents sharing common characteristics under a single description. A categorical entry might read: “All emails between outside counsel R. Adams and General Counsel J. Doe between March 1 and June 30, 2025, concerning legal advice on the proposed acquisition,” with the privilege basis applied to the whole group.¹

Categorical logging is not automatic. It is typically negotiated during the Rule 26(f) conference and documented in an ESI protocol or stipulated order. Get the agreement in writing before production starts. A court asked to resolve a format dispute after the fact may not be sympathetic to a categorical approach adopted unilaterally.

What a Weak Entry Risks

The party withholding documents carries the burden of proving the privilege, and that burden never shifts. If opposing counsel moves to compel, each challenged entry has to stand on its own.¹ An entry too vague to carry that burden can produce a finding of waiver, meaning the document gets turned over anyway. The format in the sample at the top of this article is designed to prevent that outcome: identifiable participants with titles, a date, a concrete subject, and a clearly stated basis for the claim, in every row.

1
Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 26 – Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery
2
U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska. The Dreaded Privilege Log – Rules and Practical Tips