Anas Aldehishy أنس الدهيشي

In my journey as a lawyer I experienced many acts and behaviours some attorneys does that seems to be a misconduct but is not an obvious one. However, and for the sake of educating the public of such unethical acts, here are these common unethical conducts: 1. Digression: The most behaviour I notice in court is digression where some lawyers are insisting to do. As law school students we learned to focus on the lawsuit subject as an ethical obligation.  Digression merely means to waste time and effort of the court and the opponent lawyer, hence, it should be considered a misconduct. 2. Indirect Nettling: Although indirect nettling might be considered part of point (1), but the object of doing it is different. This behaviour aims - beside extending litigation period - to irritate the opponent lawyer or its client to illegally response to such act, which might result into unfavorable consequences to the opponent or to the court session. 3. incomplete Authorized Representation:

In this short essay, you will see how Medical Insurance on employees’ parents can benefit the companies and serve their objects. The aspects are the following: 1.     Showing and gaining respect: By including parents in medical insurance, corporates are expressing their appreciation to people who raised their employees, and we know how much parents means in sons’ & daughters’ life in Middle East. Therefore, and as it is expected, that workers will return this gesture by doing their job in best ways they could. 2.     Enhance company’s attraction to quality people: It is not a secret that one of the benefits companies can offer to any prospective or current employee is to include their parents in health insurance coverage. As a result, companies’ ability to hunt or keep valuable employees would increase. 3.     Not the first company: There are many examples of successful entities, which considered as attractive workplaces in Middle East, that implying parents’ medi

When talking about work environments, almost always Google's model comes up as the perfect example of modern innovative workplace and in how entities should treat and govern their employees. However, what is usually omitted or being forgotten in Google's model is the company's location (Silicon Valley, San Francisco), which might considered as IT's and IS's "haven" and it is a target of many technical specialists as the city offers quality welfare and attractive public environment. As a result, there are certain unrecognised factors that could determine a successful corporate culture and help an entity to reach to the desired and attractive work place where employees are happy, therefore, productive. In fact, whatever small or big the factors are for making best, innovative, productive workplace, we need to take into account every aspect in order to reach to the "heavenly" place. In this essay I try to focus on what it seems to be the sign

I.          Introduction It appears that there is a difference between two principles in common law when it comes to contracts interpretation. Since 1982, The Australian High courts have endorsed the Codelfa approach, from Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of N.S.W . , in interpreting commercial contracts. [1] The notion of Codelfa approach requires judges to adopt the natural and ‘plain meaning’ of contract words – not to construe the meaning of the words of an agreement, that is, unless there is an ambiguity. [2] In such cases where an obscurity in wording does occur, then the ‘evidence of surrounding circumstances is admissible to assist in the interpretation of the contract.’ [3] Thus, the judge will consider the background facts just when there is a lack of plain meaning in the terms of an agreement. In 1998, however, a new approach to contract interpretation was introduced, developed by Lord Hoffmann in the case of Investors Comp Schem