Thank you sir. The point of the agreement shown is to ensure that no settlement communications can be used in court. I am well aware that anything I disclose during those negotiations will become common knowledge to my opponent, even if it is not directly admissible (the same info might otherwise be discoverable, and thus easier to discover). I'm also confident in my position as far as the possibility of a full on legal battle goes. The worst thing that is likely to happen if that battle occurs is that it will sap a great deal of the resources that are being battled for. Which is why people prefer to settle in the first place.

So back to the essence of my question: Are there any obvious holes in the agreement? And most importantly, exactly what types of attacks would an experienced lawyer be watching out for that I wouldn't?

I am more than happy to be logically persuaded that I really do need a lawyer on hand at this early stage. And although I'm sure you couldn't even come close to naming every likely scenario, a few concrete examples that even a smart layperson probably never would have thought of would be much more persuasive than a simple assertion that a lawyer is needed. I certainly don't fault you for it, seems like a knee-jerk reaction with very good intentions, but I would appreciate a bit more thoughtful response from you or anyone else reading this.