Opposing Counsel Letter Response
When you receive a letter from opposing counsel making demands, assertions, or arguments that require a written response.
Letters from opposing counsel demand a careful reply that engages every argument without conceding ground or revealing strategy. Leave a point unanswered and you risk an implied admission; respond defensively and you cede the narrative. Drafting a measured, point-by-point response that corrects misstatements, rejects baseless demands, and states your position affirmatively takes real time, and it usually lands on your desk when you have the least of it.
Claude is well suited to the first draft. Paste the incoming letter, your client's posture, and the tone you want, and it returns a structured response that addresses each substantive point in turn, separates the demands worth conceding from those to reject, and frames your position from strength. You keep control of strategy and what to admit; Claude handles the organizational heavy lifting so you can focus on the few sentences that actually matter.
Read the draft critically before it goes out. Claude may concede a point you intend to contest, soften language you want firm, or miss a factual nuance only you know. Verify every factual assertion and citation against the file, and confirm the tone fits the relationship and the forum. The output is attorney work product to refine, not legal advice, and not a letter to send unreviewed.
The Prompt
Draft a response to the letter from opposing counsel below. <their_letter> [PASTE THE LETTER] </their_letter> <our_facts> [THE FACTS, DOCUMENTS, AND CONTRACT OR RULE LANGUAGE THAT SUPPORT OUR POSITION] </our_facts> My client: [ROLE AND BRIEF CONTEXT] Tone: [e.g., firm but professional, firm, conciliatory] Our position: [BRIEF SUMMARY OF OUR STANCE] Points we will concede, if any: [LIST, OR "NONE"] Settlement communication? [YES / NO] The response should: 1. Address each substantive point they raised: quote each point you are answering, and do not skip any 2. Correct factual misstatements using only <our_facts> 3. Reject demands that lack a basis, quoting the contract or rule language in <our_facts>; where authority is needed and not provided, write [AUTHORITY: VERIFY] 4. Concede only the points I listed above 5. State our position clearly and the basis for it 6. Propose next steps or a deadline for response 7. Preserve all rights and remedies Do not state any fact that is not in <our_facts>, and avoid language that could be read as an admission. If something I need is missing or ambiguous, say so instead of assuming. Do not invent facts, citations, or quotations; mark anything you are unsure of [VERIFY]. This is a draft for attorney review.
Example Output
A 2-4 page response letter addressing each point from the original letter, with legal citations and a clear statement of position.
Illustrative example — names, figures, and facts are fictional.
[Firm Letterhead] June 7, 2026 VIA EMAIL Mr. Alan Prewitt, Esq. Prewitt & Lowe LLP Re: Tovar Manufacturing, Inc. v. Brightline Logistics: Your letter of May 30, 2026 Dear Mr. Prewitt: We write on behalf of Brightline Logistics in response to your May 30 letter. We address each of your points in turn. 1. Alleged breach of the delivery schedule. Your letter asserts Brightline failed to meet the contractual delivery dates. That is incorrect. Section 4.2 ties the schedule to your client's timely provision of materials, which were delivered eleven days late on three occasions (see invoices BL-0412, BL-0455, BL-0478). The delay was excused under the same provision. 2. Demand for $84,000 in consequential damages. This demand lacks any basis. Section 9.1 of the Master Services Agreement expressly waives consequential damages for both parties. We reject the demand in full. 3. Claim that notice was deficient. We agree the April 2 notice was sent to the prior contact address. Brightline re-sent the identical notice to the updated address on April 9, well within the cure window, curing any defect without prejudice to its position. Brightline's position is that it has performed in full compliance with the agreement and that your client's own delays caused any disruption. We remain willing to discuss resolution and ask for your client's response by June 20, 2026. All of Brightline's rights and remedies are expressly reserved. Sincerely, [Attorney Name], Esq.
Tips
- •Paste their entire letter; Claude responds more precisely when it can see every argument they made.
- •Specify the tone carefully: 'firm but professional' produces different output than 'conciliatory.'
- •Review the response for any inadvertent admissions before sending.
- •Decide whether the letter should be marked as a settlement communication under [APPLICABLE RULE].
- •Treat the output as a draft for attorney review; verify every citation, quotation, date and figure against the source before relying on it.
Frequently Asked Questions
When is this prompt the right tool?
Use it whenever opposing counsel sends a letter making demands, asserting facts, or advancing arguments that warrant a written reply: a demand letter, a meet-and-confer position, a breach notice, or a pre-litigation threat. It is most valuable when the incoming letter raises several distinct points and you need to be sure your response engages each one rather than answering only the loudest.
Can I send Claude's response as written?
No. Treat it as a first draft. Before it leaves your office, verify every factual assertion and citation against the record, confirm the draft does not concede a point you intend to contest, and check that the tone fits the relationship and forum. A response to opposing counsel can be used against your client, so attorney review is essential, not optional.
How do I get the strongest response?
Paste the entire incoming letter so Claude sees every argument, and be precise about tone: 'firm but professional' yields a very different draft than 'conciliatory.' State your position and the facts or rules that support it, and tell Claude which demands to reject and which, if any, to concede. Specific inputs produce a response that reads like seasoned counsel wrote it.
Is it ethical to draft adversarial correspondence with AI?
Yes, with proper supervision. ABA Formal Opinion 512 permits AI assistance provided the lawyer reviews the output, safeguards client confidentiality, and ensures accuracy. Be cautious about pasting privileged details into consumer tools without adequate data protections, and always confirm the draft makes no inadvertent admission before sending. The duty of candor and competence stays with you.
Related Prompts
Get New Prompts Like This Every Week
Join the free Claude for Lawyers newsletter — weekly prompts, tutorials, and practice-specific guides.