I-N-T-E-N-S-E

Wow, that was intense.

My lawyer is good, lot's of credentials, but now I know why he is partner, rather than senior partner. Plan A was OK until the opposition took out some teeth. It would be simpler to concede and move on, but completely ineffective, it depends on good will which has been absent to date.

So the senior partner goes to work on me, get it over with now, it will be better for everybody, Plan A does that. I respond, but it won't be over, there's no good will. Look at these events. Back and forth we go, OK, he understands that Plan A won't work, let's define Plan B carefully, what should it be? Back and forth we go, negotiating, defining, then we agree. He shows me some holes in my Plan B, he shows me some addons in his Plan B. He ties the plan tightly to the root goals.

Now I've had decades of experience in negotiating quarter million dollar computer contracts, in focus groups, planning sessions, etc., but this guy was impressive. Finding common ground, finding the root requirement, and then a creative way to meet it. This is not your typical divorce firm, they are the premier collaborative law firm in the area. Collaborative law seeks a solution, meeting on common ground, traditional (adversarial) law seeks the opposition on opposite ground. It's no accident I chose them. Although it was a very pleasant surprise to see just how good this senior partner is and that he is putting his full weight behind my case.

After 70 minutes of intense discussion, I was spent, so I stopped off at a diner and had a slow recuperative brunch. So I am satisfied that this is moving forward in a direction that will benefit my son and myself.

Status: First Draft