1. Load

   ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md

   → demand-letter practice, landscape, risk calibration.
2. Follow the workflow and reference below.
3. Run the adaptive intake (core 8 always; strategic block if material or

   --full

   ).
4. Generate slug from title + counterparty + year-month.
5. Write

   ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/demand-letters/[slug]/intake.md

   .
6. Confirm with user: "Intake saved. Run

   /litigation-legal:demand-draft [slug]

   when ready."

• ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md

  → Demand-letter practice (insurance-tender timing, materiality threshold for matter creation, any seed-doc templates), landscape (counterparty type, repeat-adversary patterns), risk calibration (to pre-estimate materiality), house style. Tone, compliance period, marking, signer are NOT practice-level defaults — they are set per matter in the

  ## Posture for this matter

  step below.

• --full

  → run the complete intake regardless of materiality heuristics (for counsel who wants thorough every time)

Posture for this matter. Demand-letter tone and terms are case-by-case, not a practice default. Ask:

• Tone: measured / assertive / aggressive? (depends on the relationship, the amount, and whether litigation is likely)
• Response window: what's reasonable given the claim? (14 days is common for payment demands; 30 days for cure; 7 days for cease-and-desist — but the contract or protocol may set it)
• Marking: does this need a "without prejudice" or "without prejudice save as to costs" marking? (settlement communications do; assertions of claim often don't; jurisdiction matters — ask if unsure)
• Signer: you, the client, the GC, instructed solicitor/counsel? Don't assume. Read the prior demand correspondence in the matter file if there is any — it establishes the register.

## Posture

## Parties

payment | breach-cure | cease-desist | employment-separation | preservation | other

• Sender: our company (and any specific entity if multi-entity)
• Recipient: counterparty — name, entity, address
• Recipient audience: who actually reads (GC? CEO? individual? in-house legal?)
• Relationship:

  customer | vendor | ex-employee | competitor | third-party | other

• What happened and when (dates matter — statute-of-limitations, notice periods)
• Evidence available (contracts, emails, records, witnesses)

• Which provisions — specific contract sections if applicable
• Governing law (jurisdiction, choice-of-law clause)
• Statutes or rules relied on (placeholders OK — the draft will flag

  [CITE:___]

  anyway)

• Specific asks. Not "resolution" — payment of $X by date Y; cessation of specific activity Z; cure within N days; return of specific property.
• If multiple asks, order them (primary vs. fallback)

• External deadline driving this (SoL, ongoing harm window, business event)
• Demand compliance deadline — how long we give the recipient. Use the response window captured in

  ## Posture for this matter

  above; do not fall back to a practice-level default.

• Has this been raised informally? When, by whom, in what form?
• Any response so far?
• Why is escalation to a demand letter happening now?

• Delivery method (ask; no practice-level default)
• Signer — captured in

  ## Posture for this matter

  above
• Copies — internal stakeholders, insurance carrier (if tendering pre-demand per practice-level tender-timing rule), counsel

• Demand type is

  cease-desist

  ,

  breach-cure

  ,

  employment-separation

  , or

  preservation

• Desired outcome dollar value ≥ the medium-severity band from

  ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md

  risk calibration
• Counterparty is a customer, competitor, or frequent adversary per

  ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md

  landscape
• User ran with

  --full

This is a material demand by the heuristic. The strategic block (leverage, BATNA, tone, privilege filters) is where most of the pre-writing value lives. Skipping it produces a thinner draft.

• Answer now — walk the strategic block (5-7 min)
• Answer partial — walk the subset you feel prepared for
• Skip — proceed to draft with only the core block; I'll flag

  strategic_block: skipped

  in the intake

strategic_block: skipped        # answered | partial | skipped
skipped_reason: string | null   # captured if user provided one

[SME VERIFY: leverage/tone/privilege not captured in intake]

/demand-draft

• What gives us negotiating power (contractual rights, factual leverage, reputational, commercial)
• What if they refuse — are we prepared to litigate? Go public? Accept a smaller outcome?
• Their likely BATNA — what's their best alternative? (If they don't think we'll sue, the demand is weak.)

• Reputational exposure if this becomes public
• Precedent risk — does this letter set a pattern that affects other matters?
• Regulatory / disclosure implications (is this the kind of dispute that becomes a 10-Q item?)
• Insurance implications — does sending without tendering waive coverage?

• Already captured in

  ## Posture for this matter

  above. Here, probe the trade-off if the user chose a stronger tone than the facts seem to warrant, or a weaker tone than the facts seem to warrant.
• Worth naming explicitly: aggressive tone burns the relationship. If you want to keep the business relationship but need to protect the legal position,

  measured

  is usually the right call.

• Research the settlement-communication protections applicable in the forum (FRE 408 in federal, the state equivalent otherwise). Is this letter a settlement communication that should be protected? Or an assertion of rights that shouldn't be?
• If protected: the draft will include the settlement-communication marker and will be structured so the substance (a discussion of compromise) — not just the label — supports the posture.
• Protection attaches from conduct and context, not merely from labeling. The marker is a belt-and-suspenders choice.

• What's in our internal analysis that must NOT appear in the letter? (Facts we haven't verified, our doubts about our case, strategic reasoning, prior settlement discussions)
• A single badly-worded sentence can waive privilege on related analysis. Be explicit about what stays out.

• Anything in the letter that the counterparty could later characterize as an admission of fact or liability?
• Does this demand risk inadvertently satisfying (or purporting to accept) a separate claim? (Accord-and-satisfaction: cashing a check marked "payment in full" can end a disputed debt.)

• Tone: [measured / assertive / aggressive — with one-line rationale tied to the relationship and the amount]
• Response window: [N days — tied to the claim / contract / protocol]
• Marking: [none / without prejudice / without prejudice save as to costs / other — with rationale]
• Signer: [name / role — you / client / GC / instructed counsel]

• Sender: [our entity]
• Recipient: [counterparty, entity, address]
• Recipient audience: [who reads]
• Relationship: [type]

• External: [SoL, ongoing harm window]
• Compliance: [how long we give them]

• Delivery: [method]
• Signer: [name/role]
• Copies: [list]

Here's the intake. I notice [thin spots]. Before I save, anything to add?

Intake saved. When ready:

/litigation-legal:demand-draft [slug]

• Draft the letter. That's

  demand-draft

  — the two steps are intentionally separate so counsel can pause for business input, outside counsel consult, or insurance tender before drafting.
• Decide whether to send the letter. Some intake sessions end with "actually, don't send — let's negotiate directly." That's a valid outcome; the intake record still has value.
• Run the conflicts check. If the counterparty is a customer or known entity, flag that this should clear conflicts (per

  ~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md

  ) before sending — but the check itself lives in the matter-intake workflow or outside this skill.