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:

A Blinker is a tool used to narrow horse's sight to force his/her focus on a racing track. Although, for horses, blinkers are useful and help them to achieve a goal that they are meant to do (transportation or/and racing), for human, it is extremely a bad idea to wear a Blinker in negotiation process. One of the most learnt lessons in negotiation is that a big picture strategy is almost always the only way to accomplish a beneficial agreement for each party involved in a deal making process. A one cannot understand others' interests if he/she only focus on his/her interests, not taking into account others thoughts, desires and goals, which could lead to weak deal or negative impression that probably cause relationships to collapse. For instance, one of my employees asked for a salary rise, this is not the problem for me, the issue was that he requested a 80% increase only because the average salary of legal consultants in his level of experience is higher than his current

Drafting contracts is not that simple that  a plain language and short sentences is used with disregarding of judicial proceedings and other legal considerations. Meaning interpretation, for example,  is still a significant threat that can arise with "simplicity". In other words, the purpose of using legal forms in contracts is to avoid or/and reduce misinterpretation or/and ineffectively of contracts. Due to the transnational character of many internet contracts, we need to stick to the international conventions in order to cover up most bases and to allocate the jurisdiction that the contract is governed by when conflicts raised. However, legal formed contracts goal is to minimise risks, and it is proven to be the safest way to form an agreement. To sum up, do not use the informal way as it might cost you nothing to be created, but surly they are costly and risky when applied in real life. 

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