Are Cease-and-Desist Letters Worth It? What a Lawyer Letter Can and Can’t Do
- Todd Nurick
- 3 days ago
- 9 min read
Clients ask me for lawyer letters all the time. As a client you know you've asked for at least one to "scare" or similar; as an attorney you've certainly been asked.
Someone owes money, a vendor didn’t finish the work. A former employee may be using confidential information. A competitor is using a similar name. A customer is making false accusations. A business relationship has gone sideways, and the client wants the other side to know a lawyer is now involved.
That’s a normal instinct. A letter on firm letterhead can get attention in a way that a frustrated email from the client may not. But it’s also where expectations need to be managed. A cease-and-desist letter or demand letter isn’t a court order. It doesn’t force anyone to pay money, return property, stop talking, honor a contract, or preserve evidence. The recipient may ignore it. Their lawyer may respond by saying, in effect, “So what? It’s only a letter.” Sometimes that response is right.
Still, a well-drafted lawyer letter can have real value when it’s grounded in facts, law, and strategy. It can create a record. It can demand preservation of evidence. It can put the other side on notice. It can open settlement discussions. It can stop conduct before litigation becomes necessary. It can also show a court later that the client tried to resolve the problem before filing suit.
The question isn’t whether lawyer letters “work” in the abstract. The better question is whether the letter is likely to move this dispute forward in a useful way.
Todd Nurick of Nurick Law Group, LLC is a Pennsylvania and New York business attorney with approximately 30 years of civilian business law and litigation experience and a former Army officer. As Fractional General Counsel and Outside General Counsel, he helps businesses address contracts, employment issues, trade secrets, risk management, collections, disputes, and the full range of legal concerns that an internal legal department would ordinarily handle.
Are Cease-and-Desist Letters Worth It when the other side may ignore them?
The honest answer... sometimes.
A lawyer letter has no automatic legal force. It doesn’t become powerful just because it’s printed on firm letterhead. A weak claim, dressed up in aggressive language, is still a weak claim.
That’s why clients shouldn’t think they’re simply paying for “a letter.” They’re paying for the lawyer to review the facts, contracts, emails, documents, applicable law, potential claims, defenses, remedies, tone, and next step.
That takes time. A simple matter may only require a limited review. A trade-secret, employment, intellectual property, debt-collection, or defamation issue may require more. The legal work is the judgment behind the letter, not just the words on the page.
That distinction matters because a lawyer letter can become Exhibit A later. It may be shown to a judge, opposing counsel, an insurance carrier, a regulator, a business partner, or the public. The letter should be firm, but it also needs to be accurate, supportable, and proportional.
Pennsylvania Rule of Professional Conduct 4.1 requires a lawyer, in the course of representing a client, not to knowingly make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person. Rule 4.4 also prohibits a lawyer from using means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person. Those rules are one reason a lawyer letter isn’t supposed to be a dressed-up threat with no legal foundation.
The letter should say what can be supported. It shouldn’t say more just because the client is angry.
Are Cease-and-Desist Letters Worth It before litigation?
A lawyer letter can be useful precisely because it falls short of litigation. Litigation costs money, consumes management time, hardens positions, and shifts control of the dispute into a formal process. In some cases, filing suit is necessary. In others, it’s too early, too expensive, or too aggressive for the actual business problem. But, a letter can give the client a middle step.
It may ask the recipient to:
stop using confidential information;
return company property;
preserve documents and electronically stored information;
stop contacting customers or employees in violation of an agreement;
pay an overdue balance;
complete unfinished work;
remove infringing material;
stop using a confusingly similar trademark;
retract a false statement;
identify insurance coverage;
respond through counsel by a specific deadline.
Those demands don’t guarantee compliance. They do, however, clarify the issue. A useful letter usually tells the recipient what the client believes happened, why the conduct creates a legal problem, what the client wants, when a response is due, and what may happen next if the issue isn’t resolved.
The practical menu: do nothing, write directly, send a lawyer letter, send a draft complaint, or file suit
Clients often think there are only two choices: send a lawyer letter or sue. There are usually more options.
The first option is to do nothing. That sounds passive, but sometimes it’s the right business decision. Not every slight, unpaid balance, bad review, unfinished task, or strained relationship deserves legal escalation.
The second option is a business-to-business letter from the client. That may work when the relationship still has value, the facts are straightforward, or the client wants to preserve goodwill. A clear client letter may be better than making the dispute look larger than it is.
The third option is a lawyer letter. This is often useful when the other side needs to understand that the issue has legal consequences, the client wants a formal record, or the matter involves sensitive rights like confidential information, intellectual property, restrictive covenants, or continuing harm.
The fourth option is a draft complaint that isn’t filed yet. This can be effective, but it shouldn’t be used as theater. If the client isn’t prepared to file, sending a draft complaint may backfire. A draft complaint also requires legal research and factual support because it should be capable of being filed if the dispute escalates.
The fifth option is filing suit. That may include ordinary litigation, a collection action, emergency injunctive relief, or another formal proceeding depending on the facts. Once suit is filed, the client is no longer just asking. The client is invoking a legal process.
The right choice depends on the amount at issue, the strength of the claim, the urgency, the relationship, the likely response, the client’s budget, and what the client really wants.
Different disputes require different letters
A letter about unpaid invoices isn’t the same as a letter about trade secrets. A letter about defamatory statements isn’t the same as a letter about trademark infringement. A letter to a former employee isn’t the same as a letter to a commercial customer. The legal theory changes the tone, the investigation, the demands, and the risks.
For example, when someone owes money, the lawyer needs to know what kind of debt is involved. Business-to-business collection is different from consumer debt collection. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, (FDCPA), prohibits debt collectors from using false, deceptive, or misleading representations in connection with collecting a debt. The Supreme Court has also held that the FDCPA can apply to lawyers who regularly collect consumer debts through legal proceedings. Pennsylvania’s Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act, (FCEUA), regulates certain debt-collection conduct as well.
That doesn’t mean every commercial demand letter is a consumer debt-collection issue. It means counsel has to know what kind of debt is being pursued before writing as though the only issue is nonpayment.
Trade-secret and former-employee letters are different. There, the goal may be to stop immediate harm, preserve evidence, demand return or destruction of confidential material, notify a new employer, or set up a request for injunctive relief. Under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, (DTSA), an owner of a trade secret may bring a civil action when a trade secret related to a product or service used, or intended for use, in interstate or foreign commerce is misappropriated. The DTSA also allows injunctive relief, damages, unjust-enrichment damages, exemplary damages in cases of willful and malicious misappropriation, and attorney’s fees in appropriate circumstances.
Trademark and copyright letters require their own review. The lawyer needs to know what rights exist, what registrations or uses support the claim, what conduct is challenged, whether confusion or infringement is likely, and whether defenses may exist. A letter that overstates ownership or ignores obvious defenses may weaken the client’s position instead of strengthening it.
Defamation letters also require care. The lawyer needs to know exactly what was said, who said it, where it was published, whether it was fact or opinion, whether privilege may apply, what damages exist, and whether a demand will make the statement more public.
Former employees, trade secrets, and the risk of overreach
Former employees create some of the hardest calls. A company may have legitimate concerns about confidential information, customer relationships, non-solicitation obligations, disparagement, employee raiding, or trade secrets. In those situations, a cease-and-desist letter may be a cost-effective first step.
The Today’s General Counsel article that prompted this post makes that point in the former-employee context. It explains that a well-grounded letter can formally notify the former employee, create a written record, demand specific conduct, and sometimes resolve the issue without litigation.
But the same article also warns against overuse. It's an appropriate warning.
In April 2026, the Federal Trade Commission, (FTC), announced an enforcement action involving Rollins, Inc. According to the FTC, Rollins imposed noncompete agreements on many employees and issued hundreds of threatening cease-and-desist letters citing alleged breaches of those agreements. The FTC’s proposed order required Rollins, among other things, to stop enforcing or threatening to enforce noncompete agreements and to notify current and former employees that they were no longer subject to them.
That example doesn’t mean cease-and-desist letters are improper. It means they need to be tethered to enforceable rights and real facts.
Before sending a former-employee letter, a business should ask:
Is there a signed agreement?
Is the restriction enforceable under the applicable state law?
Does the employee’s role justify the restriction?
Is there evidence of actual misuse, solicitation, interference, or threatened harm?
Are trade secrets or confidential information specifically identified?
Has the company taken reasonable steps to protect that information?
Is the requested relief narrow enough to match the legal right?
Is the letter designed to protect the business, or just to scare the former employee?
A lawyer letter should not be a bluff unless the client understands the risk
Some letters work because the recipient believes litigation may follow. That only helps if the client is prepared for that possibility. If the letter threatens suit by Friday and the client has no intention of filing, the threat loses force once Friday passes. The next letter is weaker. The recipient’s lawyer may also learn quickly that the sender is using legal language as pressure rather than as a step toward real enforcement.
That doesn’t mean every letter must lead to litigation. It means the letter should be written with the next step in mind.
Sometimes the next step is a call between lawyers. Sometimes it’s settlement. Sometimes it’s a document exchange. Sometimes it’s a demand for preservation of evidence. Sometimes it’s a complaint. Sometimes it’s letting the matter go because the cost of escalation doesn’t make sense.
Good general counsel work includes that analysis before the letter goes out.
What makes a lawyer letter worth the cost?
A lawyer letter is more likely to be worth the cost when the client can answer four questions clearly:
First, what legal right is being protected?
Second, what facts support the claim?
Third, what exactly does the client want the recipient to do?
Fourth, what will the client do if the recipient says no?
When those answers are weak, the letter may only create expense and noise. When those answers are strong, the letter can be a useful tool.
The value may be practical rather than dramatic. The recipient may return documents, pay part of the balance, stop using a name, remove a post, preserve records, identify insurance, agree to talk, or make clear that litigation is unavoidable. Even a refusal can have value if it helps the client decide what to do next.
Conclusion
Are Cease-and-Desist Letters Worth It? Sometimes, yes. But they’re not magic, and they’re not supposed to be cheap intimidation.
A lawyer letter has value when it’s researched, accurate, strategic, and tied to a real legal or business objective. It has less value when it’s just a louder version of the client’s frustration.
For businesses, the key is to decide what problem the letter is supposed to solve. If the goal is notice, preservation, negotiation, return of property, protection of confidential information, or a final opportunity to resolve the issue before litigation, a lawyer letter may make sense.
If the real goal is to make the other side feel afraid without a plan to follow through, it probably doesn’t.
If your business is considering a cease-and-desist letter, demand letter, draft complaint, or litigation strategy, Todd Nurick and Nurick Law Group, LLC can help evaluate the facts, rights, risks, and next steps through Fractional General Counsel or Outside General Counsel support.
Sources
Today’s General Counsel, Leah M. Stiegler and Anne Bibeau, An Underused Arrow in the GC’s Quiver: Cease-and-Desist Letters to Former Employees, June 12, 2026.
Federal Trade Commission, FTC Takes Action Against Noncompete Agreements, Securing Protections for Workers, April 15, 2026.
Pennsylvania Disciplinary Board, Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct, including Rules 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4.
https://www.padisciplinaryboard.org/for-attorneys/rules/rule/3/the-rules-of-professional-conduct
Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, 18 U.S.C. § 1836, Civil Proceedings Under the Defend Trade Secrets Act.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1836
Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e, False or Misleading Representations Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1692e
Justia, United States Supreme Court, Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291 (1995).
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/514/291/
Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, Fair Debt Collection Practices.
https://www.attorneygeneral.gov/protect-yourself/consumer-advisories/fair-debt-collection-practices/
Pennsylvania General Assembly, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8351, Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings.
Lexis Practical Guidance, Cease and Desist Letter Response — Copyright Infringement.
Lexis Practical Guidance, Cease and Desist Letter — Defamation — Former Employee to Former Employer — Pennsylvania.
Lexis Practical Guidance, Cease and Desist Letter — Trademark Infringement.
Lexis Practical Guidance, Cease and Desist Letter — Post-employment Restrictions — Employer to Former Employee.
Lexis Practical Guidance, Nicholas W. Armington, Prince Lobel, Defend Trade Secrets Act and Other Legal Claims and Recourse to Protect Employers’ Confidential Information and Trade Secrets.
Lexis Practical Guidance, Trade Secrets Resource Kit.
Lexis Practical Guidance, Employment Litigation Resource Kit.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and isn't legal advice. Reading it doesn't create an attorney-client relationship. Todd Nurick and Nurick Law Group aren't your attorneys unless and until there is a fully executed written fee agreement with Todd Nurick or Nurick Law Group.
