AI Prompt: Draft NY Construction Demand Letter (Claude vs Gemini Test)

(identical for both models):

"Draft a demand letter from plaintiff's counsel to opposing counsel. Facts: Our client, Meridian Construction LLC, entered into a $2.4 million commercial construction contract with Apex Development Corp for the renovation of a mixed-use building at 455 Broadway, New York, NY. Meridian completed 85% of the work per the agreed specifications. Apex has refused to pay the remaining $360,000 balance, citing alleged defects that were never documented in any punch list or inspection report during the project. Draft the letter with a firm but professional tone. Include: the factual basis for the claim, the legal basis (breach of contract under NY law), a specific demand amount including interest and attorney's fees, and a 30-day cure period before litigation. Reference relevant UCC provisions if applicable."

Claude's output: Claude produced a 1,200-word demand letter with the formal structure expected in commercial litigation correspondence. The letter opened with a clear identification of the parties and the contract, moved through the factual timeline with specificity, and stated the legal basis with reference to New York contract law principles and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The demand was precise: $360,000 principal, plus prejudgment interest at the statutory rate under CPLR 5004 (9% per annum), plus reasonable attorney's fees as provided in the contract's fee-shifting clause. The tone was authoritative without being aggressive -- the kind of letter that signals serious intent while leaving room for negotiation.

Gemini's output: Gemini produced a shorter letter (approximately 800 words) with a more conversational tone. The factual recitation was accurate but less detailed. The legal analysis referenced breach of contract generally but did not cite specific New York statutory provisions or the prejudgment interest rate. The demand amount was stated but without the breakdown of principal, interest, and fees that makes a demand letter persuasive. The letter was competent but read more like a first draft that would need significant attorney revision before sending.

Verdict -- Test 4: Claude wins. For formal legal correspondence, Claude's training and alignment produce output that is closer to what a senior attorney would write. The specificity in statutory references, the structured demand breakdown, and the calibrated tone all reflect a deeper understanding of how demand letters function in practice. Gemini's output is a reasonable starting point, but it requires more revision.