Why I Rarely Use Demand Letters, and Why You Should Not Rely on Them

After more than two decades of litigating disputes, I have reached a clear conclusion: demand letters rarely deliver the desired outcome for clients. In thousands of matters across industries and jurisdictions, I have seen demand letters produce one of two results. They are either ignored altogether or trigger a response that avoids the real issue, blames someone else, or postures without moving the parties any closer to resolution. In neither case does the client obtain timely, concrete relief.

The Problem with Demand Letters

Clients often request a demand letter because it seems like a prudent initial step. It appears efficient, measured, and inexpensive. In practice, it is usually none of those things. A well-drafted demand letter requires factual review, legal analysis, and strategic framing. By the time that work is complete, counsel has invested considerable time in a document that the recipient may disregard within minutes. The client pays for work product that rarely compels action.

The problem is structural. A demand letter lacks enforceability. It carries no deadlines that a court will honor, no discovery obligations, and no meaningful consequences for silence or delay. The recipient can file it away, forward it to a risk manager, or send back a cursory reply that creates the appearance of engagement while conceding nothing. Meanwhile, the client’s leverage erodes over time, and evidence becomes stale.

Why Litigation Gets Results

By contrast, a lawsuit commands attention. Filing suit establishes jurisdiction, imposes enforceable deadlines, and creates formal consequences for noncompliance. Service of process is difficult to ignore. Discovery begins to surface documents and testimony. Motion practice forces the parties to frame issues and commit to positions. Judges can set hearings, manage schedules, and hold parties accountable. In short, litigation creates a forum where inaction carries risk and delay has a price.

For these reasons, I often save clients time and money by bypassing the demand letter and moving directly to a concrete plan of action that may include filing suit. The early investment that would have gone into drafting and revising a demand letter is redirected toward pleadings, venue analysis, provisional remedies, and collection strategy. If the opposing party is serious, the litigation setting encourages meaningful dialogue. If not, the client is already on a path toward enforceable relief.

Limited Exceptions to the Rule

There are limited exceptions. In some jurisdictions and practice areas, statutes or contracts require pre-suit notice or an opportunity to cure. In those settings, I satisfy the minimum necessary requirements while preserving leverage for the forum that matters. Even then, the notice is not a substitute for a real remedy. It is a box to check on the way to a venue that can issue orders and enter judgments.

Efficiency Over Posturing

This approach is not about aggression for its own sake. It is about efficiency and results. Clients retain counsel to solve problems, not to send correspondence that changes nothing. A focused litigation strategy clarifies rights, accelerates decision points, and drives outcomes. When negotiation is productive, it usually becomes so only after the case is filed and the parties face real deadlines and real exposure.

The Better Question to Ask

If you are considering a demand letter, ask a different question: What is the fastest, most cost-effective path to a durable result? In most matters, the answer is to take action that compels a response and positions you to prevail—rather than to wait for a letter to do work it was never designed to do.