I am an attorney and a negotiator. I handle disputes where the legal problem is mixed with pressure, reputation and time — and I write about what a precise description of events still misses.
Three partners. Two run the company day to day; one is the majority shareholder who has 'only observed' for two years. Six months pass without a significant decision — and formally, there is no conflict.
The question on the table: how to reach consensus. The question that decides everything: who holds the veto and is afraid to use it, because they would have to defend it.Until the second is answered, every meeting is a re-run of the first.
Attorney and negotiator
Registered with the Czech Bar Association under no. 20461, partner at the IUSTORIA law firm in Brno. The outcome is usually settled before the statute is opened — in who has time on their side and who has done the arithmetic.
How I read disputes →Author of the method
A two-day course for sixteen people who work on their own live case throughout. Forty per cent teaching, sixty per cent drill; when time runs short, the teaching is what gets cut.
Open the course →Essayist
Seven essays in Czech and English on power, language and systems — and on the moment when an accurate description of an event still misses the truth. Each one downloads as an A4 setting with a cover and a colophon.
Read the essays →Author of social simulations
Live games with an architecture — without a script, not without rules — in which a group meets negotiation and decision-making under uncertainty for real. One edition ran as a weekend game for twenty players.
About VELAR →Anatomy of a situation
Clients often arrive with a sentence that sounds practical. “I need a reply.” “I want to know if I should sue.” “I have to talk to them.” The sentence usually carries pressure rather than a problem.
Stated brief
On the surface it is about a letter, a contract, a reply to the other side, or preparing for a meeting. The brief looks technical and tempts toward fast text production.
Actual problem
Someone is buying time. Someone is testing a boundary. Someone wants to shift responsibility. Someone needs the other side to make the first mistake.
First piece of work
We first map the other side, the timing, the evidence, the motives, the reputational risk and the cost of silence. Only then do we decide whether the response should be sharp, calm, delayed or none.
Output
The result might be a legal strategy, a negotiation frame, a short written piece, a prepared conversation, or a recommendation to send nothing at all.