I was involved in a high-stakes land use issue regarding the Shorelines Management Act. We were litigating with a landlord employing a tony downtown Seattle law firm. For face saving reasons, the manager directing their law firm left the case on autopilot. Consequently, we were litigating against their lawyer who had every incentive (besides his client's interest) to pursue every imaginable legal cul de sac. They were outspending us almost 3 to 1 (this came out later). Even though we finally settled in the low six-figures, the final tally was pennies on the dollar for us and carnage on the other side. The settlement covered only a sliver of their legal fees and the litigation drew unwanted city attention to their property and the ways in which they were skirting the law. Peter was great to work with. I found him well connected, well regarded and generous with his knowledge and time. He was clever, always wrestling with the case in his mind, and always cognizant of the personal dimension of a case, either regarding the client or the opponent. In this case, as well as with counsel later in several other matters, I found him pragmatic or pugnacious as circumstances warranted. In some instances, we pressed the fight, in others, we walked away. In all cases, these seemed appropriate courses even in hindsight. When I have had further need for services, he is my first call.

I was involved in a high-stakes land use issue regarding the Shorelines Management Act. We were litigating with a landlord employing a tony downtown Seattle law firm. For face saving reasons, the manager directing their law firm left the case on autopilot. Consequently, we were litigating against their lawyer who had every incentive (besides his client's interest) to pursue every imaginable legal cul de sac. They were outspending us almost 3 to 1 (this came out later). Even though we finally settled in the low six-figures, the final tally was pennies on the dollar for us and carnage on the other side. The settlement covered only a sliver of their legal fees and the litigation drew unwanted city attention to their property and the ways in which they were skirting the law. Peter was great to work with. I found him well connected, well regarded and generous with his knowledge and time. He was clever, always wrestling with the case in his mind, and always cognizant of the personal dimension of a case, either regarding the client or the opponent. In this case, as well as with counsel later in several other matters, I found him pragmatic or pugnacious as circumstances warranted. In some instances, we pressed the fight, in others, we walked away. In all cases, these seemed appropriate courses even in hindsight. When I have had further need for services, he is my first call.

I was involved in a high-stakes land use issue regarding the Shorelines Management Act. We were litigating with a landlord employing a tony downtown Seattle law firm. For face saving reasons, the manager directing their law firm left the case on autopilot. Consequently, we were litigating against their lawyer who had every incentive (besides his client's interest) to pursue every imaginable legal cul de sac. They were outspending us almost 3 to 1 (this came out later). Even though we finally settled in the low six-figures, the final tally was pennies on the dollar for us and carnage on the other side. The settlement covered only a sliver of their legal fees and the litigation drew unwanted city attention to their property and the ways in which they were skirting the law. Peter was great to work with. I found him well connected, well regarded and generous with his knowledge and time. He was clever, always wrestling with the case in his mind, and always cognizant of the personal dimension of a case, either regarding the client or the opponent. In this case, as well as with counsel later in several other matters, I found him pragmatic or pugnacious as circumstances warranted. In some instances, we pressed the fight, in others, we walked away. In all cases, these seemed appropriate courses even in hindsight. When I have had further need for services, he is my first call.

I was involved in a high-stakes land use issue regarding the Shorelines Management Act. We were litigating with a landlord employing a tony downtown Seattle law firm. For face saving reasons, the manager directing their law firm left the case on autopilot. Consequently, we were litigating against their lawyer who had every incentive (besides his client's interest) to pursue every imaginable legal cul de sac. They were outspending us almost 3 to 1 (this came out later). Even though we finally settled in the low six-figures, the final tally was pennies on the dollar for us and carnage on the other side. The settlement covered only a sliver of their legal fees and the litigation drew unwanted city attention to their property and the ways in which they were skirting the law. Peter was great to work with. I found him well connected, well regarded and generous with his knowledge and time. He was clever, always wrestling with the case in his mind, and always cognizant of the personal dimension of a case, either regarding the client or the opponent. In this case, as well as with counsel later in several other matters, I found him pragmatic or pugnacious as circumstances warranted. In some instances, we pressed the fight, in others, we walked away. In all cases, these seemed appropriate courses even in hindsight. When I have had further need for services, he is my first call.

I was involved in a high-stakes land use issue regarding the Shorelines Management Act. We were litigating with a landlord employing a tony downtown Seattle law firm. For face saving reasons, the manager directing their law firm left the case on autopilot. Consequently, we were litigating against their lawyer who had every incentive (besides his client's interest) to pursue every imaginable legal cul de sac. They were outspending us almost 3 to 1 (this came out later). Even though we finally settled in the low six-figures, the final tally was pennies on the dollar for us and carnage on the other side. The settlement covered only a sliver of their legal fees and the litigation drew unwanted city attention to their property and the ways in which they were skirting the law. Peter was great to work with. I found him well connected, well regarded and generous with his knowledge and time. He was clever, always wrestling with the case in his mind, and always cognizant of the personal dimension of a case, either regarding the client or the opponent. In this case, as well as with counsel later in several other matters, I found him pragmatic or pugnacious as circumstances warranted. In some instances, we pressed the fight, in others, we walked away. In all cases, these seemed appropriate courses even in hindsight. When I have had further need for services, he is my first call.

I was involved in a high-stakes land use issue regarding the Shorelines Management Act. We were litigating with a landlord employing a tony downtown Seattle law firm. For face saving reasons, the manager directing their law firm left the case on autopilot. Consequently, we were litigating against their lawyer who had every incentive (besides his client's interest) to pursue every imaginable legal cul de sac. They were outspending us almost 3 to 1 (this came out later). Even though we finally settled in the low six-figures, the final tally was pennies on the dollar for us and carnage on the other side. The settlement covered only a sliver of their legal fees and the litigation drew unwanted city attention to their property and the ways in which they were skirting the law. Peter was great to work with. I found him well connected, well regarded and generous with his knowledge and time. He was clever, always wrestling with the case in his mind, and always cognizant of the personal dimension of a case, either regarding the client or the opponent. In this case, as well as with counsel later in several other matters, I found him pragmatic or pugnacious as circumstances warranted. In some instances, we pressed the fight, in others, we walked away. In all cases, these seemed appropriate courses even in hindsight. When I have had further need for services, he is my first call.

I was involved in a high-stakes land use issue regarding the Shorelines Management Act. We were litigating with a landlord employing a tony downtown Seattle law firm. For face saving reasons, the manager directing their law firm left the case on autopilot. Consequently, we were litigating against their lawyer who had every incentive (besides his client's interest) to pursue every imaginable legal cul de sac. They were outspending us almost 3 to 1 (this came out later). Even though we finally settled in the low six-figures, the final tally was pennies on the dollar for us and carnage on the other side. The settlement covered only a sliver of their legal fees and the litigation drew unwanted city attention to their property and the ways in which they were skirting the law. Peter was great to work with. I found him well connected, well regarded and generous with his knowledge and time. He was clever, always wrestling with the case in his mind, and always cognizant of the personal dimension of a case, either regarding the client or the opponent. In this case, as well as with counsel later in several other matters, I found him pragmatic or pugnacious as circumstances warranted. In some instances, we pressed the fight, in others, we walked away. In all cases, these seemed appropriate courses even in hindsight. When I have had further need for services, he is my first call.

I was involved in a high-stakes land use issue regarding the Shorelines Management Act. We were litigating with a landlord employing a tony downtown Seattle law firm. For face saving reasons, the manager directing their law firm left the case on autopilot. Consequently, we were litigating against their lawyer who had every incentive (besides his client's interest) to pursue every imaginable legal cul de sac. They were outspending us almost 3 to 1 (this came out later). Even though we finally settled in the low six-figures, the final tally was pennies on the dollar for us and carnage on the other side. The settlement covered only a sliver of their legal fees and the litigation drew unwanted city attention to their property and the ways in which they were skirting the law. Peter was great to work with. I found him well connected, well regarded and generous with his knowledge and time. He was clever, always wrestling with the case in his mind, and always cognizant of the personal dimension of a case, either regarding the client or the opponent. In this case, as well as with counsel later in several other matters, I found him pragmatic or pugnacious as circumstances warranted. In some instances, we pressed the fight, in others, we walked away. In all cases, these seemed appropriate courses even in hindsight. When I have had further need for services, he is my first call.

I was involved in a high-stakes land use issue regarding the Shorelines Management Act. We were litigating with a landlord employing a tony downtown Seattle law firm. For face saving reasons, the manager directing their law firm left the case on autopilot. Consequently, we were litigating against their lawyer who had every incentive (besides his client's interest) to pursue every imaginable legal cul de sac. They were outspending us almost 3 to 1 (this came out later). Even though we finally settled in the low six-figures, the final tally was pennies on the dollar for us and carnage on the other side. The settlement covered only a sliver of their legal fees and the litigation drew unwanted city attention to their property and the ways in which they were skirting the law. Peter was great to work with. I found him well connected, well regarded and generous with his knowledge and time. He was clever, always wrestling with the case in his mind, and always cognizant of the personal dimension of a case, either regarding the client or the opponent. In this case, as well as with counsel later in several other matters, I found him pragmatic or pugnacious as circumstances warranted. In some instances, we pressed the fight, in others, we walked away. In all cases, these seemed appropriate courses even in hindsight. When I have had further need for services, he is my first call.

I was involved in a high-stakes land use issue regarding the Shorelines Management Act. We were litigating with a landlord employing a tony downtown Seattle law firm. For face saving reasons, the manager directing their law firm left the case on autopilot. Consequently, we were litigating against their lawyer who had every incentive (besides his client's interest) to pursue every imaginable legal cul de sac. They were outspending us almost 3 to 1 (this came out later). Even though we finally settled in the low six-figures, the final tally was pennies on the dollar for us and carnage on the other side. The settlement covered only a sliver of their legal fees and the litigation drew unwanted city attention to their property and the ways in which they were skirting the law. Peter was great to work with. I found him well connected, well regarded and generous with his knowledge and time. He was clever, always wrestling with the case in his mind, and always cognizant of the personal dimension of a case, either regarding the client or the opponent. In this case, as well as with counsel later in several other matters, I found him pragmatic or pugnacious as circumstances warranted. In some instances, we pressed the fight, in others, we walked away. In all cases, these seemed appropriate courses even in hindsight. When I have had further need for services, he is my first call.

I was involved in a high-stakes land use issue regarding the Shorelines Management Act. We were litigating with a landlord employing a tony downtown Seattle law firm. For face saving reasons, the manager directing their law firm left the case on autopilot. Consequently, we were litigating against their lawyer who had every incentive (besides his client's interest) to pursue every imaginable legal cul de sac. They were outspending us almost 3 to 1 (this came out later). Even though we finally settled in the low six-figures, the final tally was pennies on the dollar for us and carnage on the other side. The settlement covered only a sliver of their legal fees and the litigation drew unwanted city attention to their property and the ways in which they were skirting the law. Peter was great to work with. I found him well connected, well regarded and generous with his knowledge and time. He was clever, always wrestling with the case in his mind, and always cognizant of the personal dimension of a case, either regarding the client or the opponent. In this case, as well as with counsel later in several other matters, I found him pragmatic or pugnacious as circumstances warranted. In some instances, we pressed the fight, in others, we walked away. In all cases, these seemed appropriate courses even in hindsight. When I have had further need for services, he is my first call.

I was involved in a high-stakes land use issue regarding the Shorelines Management Act. We were litigating with a landlord employing a tony downtown Seattle law firm. For face saving reasons, the manager directing their law firm left the case on autopilot. Consequently, we were litigating against their lawyer who had every incentive (besides his client's interest) to pursue every imaginable legal cul de sac. They were outspending us almost 3 to 1 (this came out later). Even though we finally settled in the low six-figures, the final tally was pennies on the dollar for us and carnage on the other side. The settlement covered only a sliver of their legal fees and the litigation drew unwanted city attention to their property and the ways in which they were skirting the law. Peter was great to work with. I found him well connected, well regarded and generous with his knowledge and time. He was clever, always wrestling with the case in his mind, and always cognizant of the personal dimension of a case, either regarding the client or the opponent. In this case, as well as with counsel later in several other matters, I found him pragmatic or pugnacious as circumstances warranted. In some instances, we pressed the fight, in others, we walked away. In all cases, these seemed appropriate courses even in hindsight. When I have had further need for services, he is my first call.

I was involved in a high-stakes land use issue regarding the Shorelines Management Act. We were litigating with a landlord employing a tony downtown Seattle law firm. For face saving reasons, the manager directing their law firm left the case on autopilot. Consequently, we were litigating against their lawyer who had every incentive (besides his client's interest) to pursue every imaginable legal cul de sac. They were outspending us almost 3 to 1 (this came out later). Even though we finally settled in the low six-figures, the final tally was pennies on the dollar for us and carnage on the other side. The settlement covered only a sliver of their legal fees and the litigation drew unwanted city attention to their property and the ways in which they were skirting the law. Peter was great to work with. I found him well connected, well regarded and generous with his knowledge and time. He was clever, always wrestling with the case in his mind, and always cognizant of the personal dimension of a case, either regarding the client or the opponent. In this case, as well as with counsel later in several other matters, I found him pragmatic or pugnacious as circumstances warranted. In some instances, we pressed the fight, in others, we walked away. In all cases, these seemed appropriate courses even in hindsight. When I have had further need for services, he is my first call.

I was involved in a high-stakes land use issue regarding the Shorelines Management Act. We were litigating with a landlord employing a tony downtown Seattle law firm. For face saving reasons, the manager directing their law firm left the case on autopilot. Consequently, we were litigating against their lawyer who had every incentive (besides his client's interest) to pursue every imaginable legal cul de sac. They were outspending us almost 3 to 1 (this came out later). Even though we finally settled in the low six-figures, the final tally was pennies on the dollar for us and carnage on the other side. The settlement covered only a sliver of their legal fees and the litigation drew unwanted city attention to their property and the ways in which they were skirting the law. Peter was great to work with. I found him well connected, well regarded and generous with his knowledge and time. He was clever, always wrestling with the case in his mind, and always cognizant of the personal dimension of a case, either regarding the client or the opponent. In this case, as well as with counsel later in several other matters, I found him pragmatic or pugnacious as circumstances warranted. In some instances, we pressed the fight, in others, we walked away. In all cases, these seemed appropriate courses even in hindsight. When I have had further need for services, he is my first call.

I was involved in a high-stakes land use issue regarding the Shorelines Management Act. We were litigating with a landlord employing a tony downtown Seattle law firm. For face saving reasons, the manager directing their law firm left the case on autopilot. Consequently, we were litigating against their lawyer who had every incentive (besides his client's interest) to pursue every imaginable legal cul de sac. They were outspending us almost 3 to 1 (this came out later). Even though we finally settled in the low six-figures, the final tally was pennies on the dollar for us and carnage on the other side. The settlement covered only a sliver of their legal fees and the litigation drew unwanted city attention to their property and the ways in which they were skirting the law. Peter was great to work with. I found him well connected, well regarded and generous with his knowledge and time. He was clever, always wrestling with the case in his mind, and always cognizant of the personal dimension of a case, either regarding the client or the opponent. In this case, as well as with counsel later in several other matters, I found him pragmatic or pugnacious as circumstances warranted. In some instances, we pressed the fight, in others, we walked away. In all cases, these seemed appropriate courses even in hindsight. When I have had further need for services, he is my first call.

I was involved in a high-stakes land use issue regarding the Shorelines Management Act. We were litigating with a landlord employing a tony downtown Seattle law firm. For face saving reasons, the manager directing their law firm left the case on autopilot. Consequently, we were litigating against their lawyer who had every incentive (besides his client's interest) to pursue every imaginable legal cul de sac. They were outspending us almost 3 to 1 (this came out later). Even though we finally settled in the low six-figures, the final tally was pennies on the dollar for us and carnage on the other side. The settlement covered only a sliver of their legal fees and the litigation drew unwanted city attention to their property and the ways in which they were skirting the law. Peter was great to work with. I found him well connected, well regarded and generous with his knowledge and time. He was clever, always wrestling with the case in his mind, and always cognizant of the personal dimension of a case, either regarding the client or the opponent. In this case, as well as with counsel later in several other matters, I found him pragmatic or pugnacious as circumstances warranted. In some instances, we pressed the fight, in others, we walked away. In all cases, these seemed appropriate courses even in hindsight. When I have had further need for services, he is my first call.

I was involved in a high-stakes land use issue regarding the Shorelines Management Act. We were litigating with a landlord employing a tony downtown Seattle law firm. For face saving reasons, the manager directing their law firm left the case on autopilot. Consequently, we were litigating against their lawyer who had every incentive (besides his client's interest) to pursue every imaginable legal cul de sac. They were outspending us almost 3 to 1 (this came out later). Even though we finally settled in the low six-figures, the final tally was pennies on the dollar for us and carnage on the other side. The settlement covered only a sliver of their legal fees and the litigation drew unwanted city attention to their property and the ways in which they were skirting the law. Peter was great to work with. I found him well connected, well regarded and generous with his knowledge and time. He was clever, always wrestling with the case in his mind, and always cognizant of the personal dimension of a case, either regarding the client or the opponent. In this case, as well as with counsel later in several other matters, I found him pragmatic or pugnacious as circumstances warranted. In some instances, we pressed the fight, in others, we walked away. In all cases, these seemed appropriate courses even in hindsight. When I have had further need for services, he is my first call.

I was involved in a high-stakes land use issue regarding the Shorelines Management Act. We were litigating with a landlord employing a tony downtown Seattle law firm. For face saving reasons, the manager directing their law firm left the case on autopilot. Consequently, we were litigating against their lawyer who had every incentive (besides his client's interest) to pursue every imaginable legal cul de sac. They were outspending us almost 3 to 1 (this came out later). Even though we finally settled in the low six-figures, the final tally was pennies on the dollar for us and carnage on the other side. The settlement covered only a sliver of their legal fees and the litigation drew unwanted city attention to their property and the ways in which they were skirting the law. Peter was great to work with. I found him well connected, well regarded and generous with his knowledge and time. He was clever, always wrestling with the case in his mind, and always cognizant of the personal dimension of a case, either regarding the client or the opponent. In this case, as well as with counsel later in several other matters, I found him pragmatic or pugnacious as circumstances warranted. In some instances, we pressed the fight, in others, we walked away. In all cases, these seemed appropriate courses even in hindsight. When I have had further need for services, he is my first call.

I was involved in a high-stakes land use issue regarding the Shorelines Management Act. We were litigating with a landlord employing a tony downtown Seattle law firm. For face saving reasons, the manager directing their law firm left the case on autopilot. Consequently, we were litigating against their lawyer who had every incentive (besides his client's interest) to pursue every imaginable legal cul de sac. They were outspending us almost 3 to 1 (this came out later). Even though we finally settled in the low six-figures, the final tally was pennies on the dollar for us and carnage on the other side. The settlement covered only a sliver of their legal fees and the litigation drew unwanted city attention to their property and the ways in which they were skirting the law. Peter was great to work with. I found him well connected, well regarded and generous with his knowledge and time. He was clever, always wrestling with the case in his mind, and always cognizant of the personal dimension of a case, either regarding the client or the opponent. In this case, as well as with counsel later in several other matters, I found him pragmatic or pugnacious as circumstances warranted. In some instances, we pressed the fight, in others, we walked away. In all cases, these seemed appropriate courses even in hindsight. When I have had further need for services, he is my first call.

I was involved in a high-stakes land use issue regarding the Shorelines Management Act. We were litigating with a landlord employing a tony downtown Seattle law firm. For face saving reasons, the manager directing their law firm left the case on autopilot. Consequently, we were litigating against their lawyer who had every incentive (besides his client's interest) to pursue every imaginable legal cul de sac. They were outspending us almost 3 to 1 (this came out later). Even though we finally settled in the low six-figures, the final tally was pennies on the dollar for us and carnage on the other side. The settlement covered only a sliver of their legal fees and the litigation drew unwanted city attention to their property and the ways in which they were skirting the law. Peter was great to work with. I found him well connected, well regarded and generous with his knowledge and time. He was clever, always wrestling with the case in his mind, and always cognizant of the personal dimension of a case, either regarding the client or the opponent. In this case, as well as with counsel later in several other matters, I found him pragmatic or pugnacious as circumstances warranted. In some instances, we pressed the fight, in others, we walked away. In all cases, these seemed appropriate courses even in hindsight. When I have had further need for services, he is my first call.