/demand-received

name: demand-received
description: Triage an inbound demand letter — extract fields, cross-check the portfolio, assess merit, present response options with a recommendation, and hand off to matter-intake or demand-intake if escalation is warranted. Use when the user says "we got a demand letter", "triage this demand", or shares an incoming demand to evaluate.
argument-hint: "[path-to-incoming] [--slug=custom-slug]"

/demand-received

1. Read the incoming document from provided path. 2. Load `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/matters/_log.yaml` for portfolio cross-check. 3. Load `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md` → risk calibration, landscape, demand-letter practice. 4. Follow the workflow and reference below. 5. Extract fields; cross-check portfolio; assess merit; present options with recommendation. 6. Write `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/inbound/[slug]/triage.md`. Copy or link incoming to `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/inbound/[slug]/incoming.[ext]`. 7. Hand off per user choice:

• Create matter → `matter-intake` pre-populated
• Respond with counter-demand → `demand-intake` pre-populated
• Link to existing matter → update `related_matters` in log
• Standalone → no further action

---

Demand Received

Purpose

Inbound demand letters are the bread and butter of an in-house litigation practice. A small fraction need escalation; most can be handled with a structured response or a holding letter. The failure mode is treating them all alike. This skill triages, cross-checks the portfolio, and produces options.

Load context

• The incoming document (user provides path or drops it in-session)
• `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/matters/_log.yaml` — scan for related matters (same counterparty, overlapping counterparties via entity relationships, or matter type + recent date)
• `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md` → risk calibration (for merit assessment), landscape (is the sender a frequent adversary?), demand-letter practice (house tone and response defaults)

Workflow

Step 1: Read the demand

Extract from the incoming:

• **Sender** — entity, signer, counsel (if signed by outside firm)
• **Recipient** — which entity/person at our company
• **Delivery** — certified, email, courier (matters for deadline calculation)
• **Date received** vs. **date signed**
• **Demand type** — payment, breach/cure, C&D, preservation, settlement, other
• **Specific asks** — what they want, by when
• **Facts alleged** — their version of what happened
• **Legal basis** — statutes, contract provisions, theories they cite
• **Threats** — what they say they'll do if we don't comply
• **Settlement-communication framing** — research the settlement-communication protections applicable in the forum (FRE 408 in federal, the state equivalent otherwise). Note whether the demand is marked as a settlement communication, but remember: protection attaches from conduct and context, not merely from labeling. Capture both the label (if any) and a first-pass read of whether the substance is in fact a compromise discussion.

Step 2: Portfolio cross-check

Search `_log.yaml` for:

• **Direct match** — matter with same counterparty (their slug matches the sender)
• **Type match** — similar matter type with this counterparty in the past (closed matters count — they inform pattern)
• **Subject overlap** — matters where the subject might be the same dispute (e.g., same contract, same product, same project)

Present findings:

• If **direct match + active:** flag as almost certainly the same matter; recommend adding incoming to the existing matter, not opening a new one. Update `related_matters` if it's a tangent.
• If **direct match + closed:** flag — counterparty is back. May be a new dispute (open new matter) or a resurrected one (reopen or amend). User decides.
• If **type match:** note as precedent/context; probably distinct matter but inform the response strategy.
• If **no match:** novel. Treat as fresh.

Step 3: Merit assessment

Not a legal opinion — a structured read:

• **Facts** — do the alleged facts align with what we know? Where's the disconnect?
• **Legal basis** — are the cited provisions/statutes actually applicable? (Flag cites for user verification — do not attempt to validate law autonomously.)
• **Strength on their side** — if they went to court tomorrow, what's their story?
• **Strength on our side** — what are our likely defenses?
• **Damages demanded vs. likely** — is the ask proportionate to what a court would award if they won?
• **Leverage and pressure** — are they credibly prepared to sue? Do they have capacity? Are they a repeat-litigant adversary per `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/litigation-legal/CLAUDE.md`?

Output a triage rating: **substantial merit / debatable / weak / frivolous**. Be blunt. The user is triaging, not writing the brief.

Step 4: Response options

Present 3-4 options with tradeoffs:

**Option A — substantive response**

• When: their demand has merit or is at least debatable; a reasoned reply protects the record
• Tradeoff: commits us to a position in writing
• Next step: `/demand-intake` with pre-populated fields for a counter-response letter

**Option B — holding letter**

• When: need time to investigate; don't want to concede anything or trigger their deadline math
• Tradeoff: doesn't resolve anything; buys 2-4 weeks
• Next step: short acknowledgment draft

**Option C — settlement response**

• When: early resolution is cheaper than litigation; willing to discuss without admitting
• Tradeoff: settlement-communication posture required — research the applicable rule (FRE 408 or state equivalent) and structure the response so the substance, not just the label, qualifies as a compromise discussion. Must be careful not to waive claims.
• Next step: `/demand