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 an attack on a person's assumed naivety or wrongheadedness. That just encourages one to dig in deeper. 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.
No attorney worth having is going to give you the answers that you seek in this forum. First, you are not supplying the information necessary to answer the question intelligently - and you shouldn't. This is not a privileged communication. Anyone could be reading the discussion and lots of people do.
Second, you are asking lawyers to give you for free what we sell.
Please note, I am not trying to get your business. I do not practice this area of the law and so have no financial interest in what you do next, but you are going to hurt yourself if you do not have a lawyer helping you with your side of the negotiation.
You may be able to convince someone to give you an initial consultation for a small fee or even no fee. Please don't try to do this on your own. You are out of your depth.
Thanks again, Seth. I've had an initial consultation with an experienced attorney in this field, in which I provided the basic details of my case and asked question after question for well over an hour. And despite my best efforts, I came out having learned nothing that I didn't already know or suspect. I loved the guy and felt he was easily at least as competent as any other lawyer I could have been referred to in the field (a sincere complement). I'm also more than happy to pay for unbundled services and advice. I'm simply not very interested in retaining an attorney without clear evidence that I actually need one front and center at this time. Thus, it's in the interest of any attorney worth his salt to demonstrate that someone like me does in fact need one for early settlement negotiations, and not simply to assert such. Does that make sense to you?