Updated August 24, 2023
A demand letter from attorney is an official notice issued by an attorney on behalf of a client to request some kind of action. In addition to an outline of what is being “demanded” by their client, the letter also includes the full contact details of the attorney as well as a deadline for the recipient’s formal response.
Common Demand Types
- Breach of Contract
- Collection of a Debt
- Injury
- Insurance Claim
- Malpractice
- Pending Litigation
- Personal Property
- Settlement
Table of Contents |
What is an Attorney Demand Letter?
An attorney demand letter is a useful way to get someone’s attention. It serves as a serious warning that legal action will occur unless there is, at the very least, a response from the other party. The attorney demand letter should be sent by certified mail with a return receipt.
How to Write an Attorney Demand Letter (4 steps)
2. Enter the Receiving Party’s Options
Depending on circumstances, the letter may offer alternatives for repayment or how the defendant may be able to fall under compliance that meets the attorney’s needs. The letter will need to mention a specific time period that the receiving party will have to follow through with the demands.
3. Sending the Letter
Once finalized the letter should be sent via certified mail with a return receipt. This will record the date and time the letter was accepted and the signature of the person who was handed the letter.
For more serious matters, a courier service can be used which is an individual who basically tries to find the recipient in order to hand them the demand letter. The courier service will often try to find the recipient at their residence or workplace, and in difficult situations, stake out their residence until the person leaves their home.
4. Follow-up Actions
After the letter is received by the recipient, the attorney will have the option to further negotiate with the recipient if contact is made. If contact is not made, or the recipient of the letter does not adhere to the terms of the letter, the attorney may not have a choice but to seek their legal options through the local court.
Sample 1 – Collection of Debt
Dunn & Associates
Attorneys at Law
155 W 70th St.
New York, NY 10023
November 19, 2017
Mr. Calvin Jones
Baxter Construction LTD.
201 Ann St.
Newburgh, NY 12550
Re: Final Demand Letter Prior to Legal Action
On behalf of our client Tottman Supplies Corp., we at Dunn & Associates are writing to inform you of an overdue payment owed to our client. According to the construction materials invoice agreed upon by you and our client, you owe $8,960 for materials plus delivery.
This payment is currently 60 days overdue which, consequently, will result in interest charges applied to the delivery charge. Tottman Supplies Corp. charges 1.5% interest per 30 days, which is a reasonable percentage for the inconvenience. Therefore, you will be charged an additional $268.80 for the 60 days currently overdue, bringing the total amount owing to $9,228.80.
This letter serves as the final warning for overdue payment. If payment is not made within 7 days, we will have no choice but to take immediate legal action. Please contact our firm at (212) 719-8589 if there are any questions regarding this demand.
Yours Truly,
Patrick J. Lloyd
Attorney | Dunn & Associates
Sample 2 – Medical Malpractice
Law Offices of
Adelman, Hodes & Cunningham, PLLC
151 E Congress St
Tucson, AZ 85701
July 20, 2016
Lillian Hart, RN, J.D.
Claims and Litigation
Carondelet St. Mary Hospital
1601 W St Mary’s Rd
Tucson, AZ 85745
Re: Medical Malpractice Claim of Sarahjeet Patel
Harry S. Cohen & Associates, representatives of the family of the late Mrs. Sarahjeet Patel, are writing you in an effort to resolve a medical malpractice claim without protracted litigation. This claim is against Carondelet St. Mary Hospital as well as the following medical staff members: Paul Schwartz, MD; Elisa Douglas, MD; and Charles Brink, MD.
On April 6th, 2016, Mrs. Patel was diagnosed by her PCP, Dr. Schwartz, with iron-deficiency anemia. Dr. Schwartz scheduled a colonoscopy for the following week to investigate the cause of the anemia. The colonoscopy was performed by gastroenterologist Dr. Brink on April 11th, 2016.
After the colonoscopy, two reports were generated with Mrs. Patel’s name on them. The first report (“correct report”) contained Mrs. Patel’s medical condition, which was a 5-millimeter mid-transverse polyp that required a follow-up colonoscopy. The second report (“incorrect report”) was based on another patient’s medical condition; a bleeding mass in the cecum requiring the removal of half the colon.
Dr. Schwartz received both reports but chose not to question the discrepancy, and instead referred Mrs. Patel to surgeon Dr. Douglas for an unnecessary right hemicolectomy surgery. Dr. Douglas also received both colonoscopy reports but ignored the fact that they were vastly different, scheduling Mrs. Patel for surgery the following week, April 22nd, 2016. Furthermore, Dr. Brink was provided with both reports and apparently also failed to notice the variance between the two.
On the day of the surgery, the right side of Mrs. Patel’s colon was removed but the surgeon did not find an oozing cecal mass. Neither the pathology department nor the gastroenterologist, Dr. Brink, could find anything, and it was then that they realized they performed surgery on the wrong patient.
Mrs. Patel developed respiratory distress post-operation that required mechanical ventilation. She was transferred to the ICU at a different medical facility and died shortly thereafter due to multiple organ failure, an issue that was ultimately caused by the unnecessary surgery.
Carondelet St. Mary Hospital, Dr. Douglas, and Dr. Brink did not inform Mrs. Patel or her family about the mistake after the surgery and instead fraudulently hid the evidence of the surgery, intentionally misrepresented the purpose of the surgery, and created false records in an attempt to “prove” Mrs. Patel required this operation.
On behalf of Mrs. Patel’s estate, we are filing suit against the aforementioned parties. This lawsuit is based on the following causes of action: (1) a professional negligence action based on performing major surgery on the wrong patient; and (2) a fraudulent and intentional misrepresentation action based on the cover-up of unnecessary surgery and pointless death.
This letter serves as a pre-litigation courtesy in an attempt to resolve this claim outside of a court of law. You will find all the necessary documentation attached to this demand letter, including both the correct and incorrect colonoscopy reports. Please contact us after you have reviewed the records to discuss settlement of this claim. If you have any questions, please call (520) 792-6174.
Sincerely,
James Cunningham
Managing Partner | Adelman, Hodes & Cunningham, PLLC
Sample 3 – Breach of Contract
Kent, Hardy & Long, LLP
11 Montgomery St
San Francisco, CA 94104
December 21, 2018
Mr. Albert Koff
250 Washington St
Daly City, CA 94105
Re: Settlement Discussion for Breach of Non-Disclosure Agreement
Dear Mr. Koff,
This letter serves to inform you that you are currently in violation of the Non-Disclosure Agreement you signed with my client, TechnoShare Inc.
On September 8th, 2017, you signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement as a condition for employment with TechnoShare Inc. Section V of the Agreement (“Confidential Information”) describes confidential information as any information relating to my client’s business, assets, operations or contracts. Section VI of the Agreement (“Obligations”) clearly states that you shall maintain the confidential information in the strictest of confidence at all times. Therefore, in accordance with Section IX of the Agreement (“Enforcement”), my client, the harmed party, is entitled to all remedies available at law.
It has come to our attention that you have violated this Agreement in the following ways: (1) confidential information was discussed with a third party without written consent from TechnoShare Inc.; (2) confidential documents, including plans, formulas, and designs, were disseminated to a third party; and (3) you conspired with a third party to use confidential information for the benefit of yourself and the third party.
My client hereby requests a good faith response to this letter as soon as possible, but no later than January 4th, 2019. If we do not receive a response by this date, we reserve the right to pursue any and all available legal and equitable remedies. Furthermore, with reference to Section XII (B) of the Agreement (“Miscellaneous Provisions” – “Attorney’s Fees”), the prevailing party of any dispute related to this Agreement shall recover its attorneys’ fees.
If there are any questions regarding this demand letter, please contact my office at (415) 392-7288.
Sincerely Yours,
Valerie Garcia
Attorney | Kent, Hardy, & Long, LLP