Do you recognize the 2 early warning signs that opposing counsel doesn't understand your point yet? I've learned the hard way that misreading this costs you time, credibility, and ground. A thread on reading the room.
When the problem is communication, I reframe or explain downstream consequences. When it's substantive disagreement, I press with better evidence. Doing the wrong one signals weakness or burns time.
5/6: You can still be clear, professional, and precise. But stop assuming the next draft will land differently if nothing about the posture has changed.
What's the 1st thing you check when a negotiable clause suddenly becomes non-negotiable? I've negotiated enough SaaS deals to spot when the clause didn't change but the process behind it did. A thread on reading rigidity.
4/5: I never stop pushing, but I change what I push on. If the rigidity signals uncertainty rather than a firm decision from above, pushing harder against the person in front of you may harden them.
Legal isn't the department of "No". Legal is the function that sees risk past the close date. Your job is to learn the difference between friction that protects the company and friction that just slows the deal.
Which of these four has caused the most friction in your organization?
Sales calls legal the "Department of No." I have negotiated enough SaaS deals to know what actually causes it. A thread on why legal seems obstructive.
But when you do raise the big issues, don't back down just because the room gets uncomfortable.
Political discomfort during a deal is temporary, however, contractual exposure is not.
The alternative is signing something the company will regret once the contract is actually tested.