Retorts Removed from Demand Letter Replies

My previous two blog posts were on contract negotiations and creating fit-for-purpose NDAs.  Given that these were rather heady and in-depth, I thought I would do something light and fun for this week’s post.   Truth be told, I find the practice of law extremely dull.  So, the only way to make it tolerable to me is to entertain myself with humor.  

At the same time, I love to have fun with a good rejoinder or two.  However, I know it is unfair to engage in the battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.  For your entertainment, here are a bunch of retorts I had the good sense to edit out of my responses to various demand letters over the years:

• For all your letter’s copy-and-paste bluster, it does not actually allege any wrongdoing against my client which could serve as the basis of a cause of action.  That would seem a prerequisite to ceasing and desisting.  Did you miss the first day of law school? Therefore, there is nothing that my client is obligated to do, and no further response is required. We deem this matter settled.

• Your email does not make clear the point that you are very knowledgeable about this area of law.  To the contrary, in fact, your email makes unclear the point as to whether or not you have a good grasp of how time actually works. Hint: it only goes forward.

• Unfortunately for your client, your suggestions and beliefs are not law.  

• I am writing you in regard to your letter.  Please forgive the lateness of my reply.  When I read your letter, I was laughing so hard that the coffee I was drinking shot right out of my nose.  I had to get a new keyboard.  That was a good one – asking for a refund of fees your client never paid.  I am going to use it next April at tax time.  I am sure that the folks at the IRS and I will have a great laugh…. As of the date of this letter, your client owes us $x, due to the miracle of compound interest.  We further counterclaim for one new keyboard and a cup of coffee.

• On the off chance that your letter is not some sort of early April Fool’s Day joke, please allow me to correct the record.  

• I have read your response and while it is not my intention to embarrass you in front of your client, this is some extremely sloppy lawyering…. You have clearly misread your client’s own contract in regard to any alleged right to not serve competitors or an alleged absolute right to terminate any service to any particular company.  You contract reads, “We may stop providing the Service at any time.”  That means your client has the right to go out of business without further obligation if your client was, say, making an inferior product and lost to ours.  However, your assertion is that the contract should be read as if it were to say, “We may stop providing the Service to Customer at any time,” (emphasis supplied).  But, you didn’t put that in your agreement.  I suppose you could go back and complain to the imbecile who drafted your terms.

• P.S.  I kindly remind you to review your indemnification agreement with your employer and update your malpractice insurance accordingly.

• P.P.S.  May I have your permission to have direct contact with your represented client to discuss your professional negligence in this matter and just how stupid you actually are?

• My client cannot be asked to give your client additional rights in exchange for rights it already has.  If this were your first semester 1L contracts class, you would have just failed the midterm examination for not offering any contractual consideration.

• In conclusion, your arguments are not close. They are not even colorable. You could not even get a subpoena on this evidence. There are not any specific and articulable facts which would allow you to make a Terry Stop to frisk one of us, if you were a cop and wanted to make sure that we did not have your corporate secrets in our pockets.

• You can’t own a theory.  That would be akin to my trademarking the term “Blithering Idiot” and suing you for tarnishment under Section 43(c) of the Lantham Act.  

• Your incompetence is legion.  You are, in fact, such a bad attorney that I would not retain your services if you were the second to last attorney on Earth and the other guy had an unwaiveable conflict.

• We maintain our case for constructive eviction. Your argument to the contrary is, in essence, that the second law of thermodynamics applies at all points in the cosmos, except for your client’s apartment building.

• I would say that you are a shitty attorney, but the comparison to you would be an affront to feces everywhere.

You are welcome to use these in any way you see fit, however, I think “An Affront to Feces Everywhere” should be the title of my autobiography.  

Disclaimer: Ozeki is not a law firm, and this blog post does not constitute or contain legal advice. Use of, and access to, this blog post does not create an attorney-client relationship with Ozeki.  In other words, if this were legal advice, a bill would follow.

‍