For
most
lawyers,
responding
to
a
cease
and
desist
letter
is
an
exercise
in
draft
after
draft
of
incremental
editing
until,
“go
piss
up
a
rope,
you
ambulance
chasing
shitbird”
reads
more
like,
“in
consideration
of
the
record
and
relevant
caselaw,
we
respectfully
decline.”
Marc
Randazza
doesn’t
do
the
last
part.
If
anything,
his
meticulous
editing
ratchets
up
the
creativity.
Living
out
that
unfiltered
expression
is
an
overlooked
perk
of
a
free
speech
practice.
It’s
also
a
useful
marketing
strategy
because
if
you’re
the
kind
of
person
facing
a
weapons-grade
stupid
legal
threat,
this
is
the
sort
of
response
that
makes
you
say,
“Yes,
that’s
my
guy.”
Enter
@murrayhillguy.
When
his
prospective
date
asked
a
question
about
politics,
he
called
off
the
date
and
posted
the
text
conversation
online.
The
woman
involved
didn’t
appreciate
their
conversation
becoming
social
media
fodder
and
lawyered
up,
commissioning
some
poor
soul
to
draft
a
takedown
letter
dictated
between
deep
sighs
and
furtive
glances
at
the
retainer
check.
We
serve
as
First
Amendment
counsel
to
the
owner
of
the
X
account
@murrayhillguy.Your
client,
Julia
agreed
to
a
date
with
my
client.
She
then
asked
him
if
he
voted
for
Zohran
Mamdani,
(implying
that
it
mattered
in
the
context
of
the
date)
and
my
client’s
response
was
to
cancel
the
date
and
to
post
the
exchange
on
his
social
media
account.
A
few
people
laughed.
That
should
have
been
the
end
of
it.
To
be
fair,
that
does
matter
in
the
context
of
a
date.
Since
the
other
viable
alternative
was
a
guy
forced
out
of
his
last
job
over
sexual
harassment
running
on
a
platform
of
“yeah,
but
who
cares?”
it
seems
entirely
reasonable
if
a
woman
wanted
to
make
sure
she
wasn’t
committing
to
a
night
of
having
to
watch
her
drink
from
her
own
date.
Because
New
York
employs
the
much-more-rational
ranked
choice
system,
she’s
not
even
asking
if
Mamdani
was
the
guy’s
first
choice
—
the
whole
race
was
“do
you
not
rank
Cuomo
or
not
rank
Mamdani”
so
she’s
very
much
asking
if
her
date
was
the
sort
of
guy
who
might
say,
Jordan
Peterson
has
a
lot
of
good
ideas.
But
on
the
more
fundamental
point,
yes,
this
should
have
been
the
end
of
it.
Friends,
it
was
not
the
end
of
it.
Instead,
the
letter
claims
she
suggested
that
she
would
“call
the
police”
before
ultimately
hiring
a
lawyer
to
send
a
demand
letter.
The
letter
didn’t
quite
accuse
anyone
of
defamation
—
because
it
couldn’t
really
—
but
it
apparently
tried
to
radiate
vague
menace
about
“certain
representations
may
be
construed
as
defamatory
or
damaging
to
our
client’s
reputation
and
well-being,”
before
promising
to
“consider
further
legal
remedies.”
Randazza
savaged
this
effort:
I
sense
by
the
tenor
of
your
demand
that
you
don’t
entirely
believe
in
it
yourself.
I
suspect
that
your
conversation
with
Julia
went
something
like
“Julia,
there’s
not
a
thing
you
can
do
about
this,
are
you
out
of
your
fucking
mind?”
Then
something
(other
than
conviction
in
the
ideas
expressed)
convinced
you
to
say
“fine,
I’ll
send
this
stupid
demand.”
I’m
sorry
bro.
I
get
it.
Sometimes
you
just
get
stuck
in
a
situation.
There’s
no
Rule
11
(or
corollary)
for
a
cease
and
desist.
It
is
the
least
a
lawyer
can
do
and,
in
a
situation
like
this,
also
the
most.
I
am
going
to
take
your
threat
literally
–
that
if
my
client
does
not
remove
this
content
from
his
social
media,
you
are
going
to
consider
further
legal
remedies.
You’ll
consider
them,
then
realize
that
every
one
of
them
is
fucking
stupid.
Then
that
will
be
the
end
of
this.Or
you
can
escalate
this,
and
we
can
make
you
look
even
dumber.
Your
move.
Demand
letters
make
a
lot
of
empty
threats.
Responses
like
this
one
attempt
to
impose
a
cover
charge
on
the
open
bar
of
modern
C&D
farming.
(Full
letter
on
the
next
page…)
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.