If you have a law degree then you should know about differences in bargaining power and how that changes negotiations (and in this case you have a large company that has you locked into a contract with a financial obligation and they have the ability to report to credit agencies). Even if he's a little off you should get the point of what he was saying. If anyone is naive it's the person who thinks they can simply call up AT&T and walk away from a contract after a little haggling.
And you can't go for the argument that the contract is unconscionable due to the inequality of bargaining power because you'd have to show that the entire market is unified in taking advantage of customers. With the prices of unsubsidized phones, you'd have a hard time proving that any of the ETF fees, especially since they're prorated now, are a problem.
Also, way to go with calling someone naive, throwing out some "credentials" and then not giving any sort of counter argument or helpful explanation.
Edit: It should also be noted that AT&T has no legal obligation to "negotiate" after a contract has already been entered into. They don't have an obligation to negotiate period.
Sorry to digress from the thread topic....