Pennsylvania. "Accordingly, we find no merit in a contention raised by appellant that the agreement should be declared void on the ground that she did not consult with independent legal counsel." Don't worry, I'll provide a google scholar link so everybody can relish in your shame.

You seem to have skipped the bit where the court determined that she had every opportunity to hire counsel, but declined to do so, and was therefore making the claim that she signed under duress. The court rules that in this instant scenario, she could not make that claim.

You also seem to be skipping the holding in Bata v. Central-Penn Nat. Bank of Philadelphia that declares that the presence of counsel invalidates any attempts to claim duress.

The pleadings establish that this is not a case where an ignorant person, unrepresented by a lawyer, was forced into an unconscionable settlement by the threat of economic catastrophe; rather it is one where the party seeking to avoid is an experienced litigant who, during the entire period of negotiations, was represented by able counsel...There is no allegation that at this time appellant was under any form of duress; thus, his actions must be viewed as a ratification of the agreement and a waiver of any claim of duress.

Lol what a dick. What are you, a 1L? I bet - that's the only reason you'd have access to both Lexis and West. Enjoy your $90k debt from your TTTT-rated boat-based law school.

I work for the government. I'm not a 1L. And the only debt I carry is on my ranch. I acquired no student loan debt on either my undergraduate or graduate degrees. My wife's student loan debt was repaid 7 years ago.

Though the personal attacks certainly are cute, aren't they? I mean, why address an argument if you can whine like a child about the person making it?

I call that the annoying-toddler approach to law. And let me tell you, judges in my jurisdiction LOVE IT.