sboghossian Table of Comparisons
A comparison table is the most efficient way to present multi-variable legal analysis. When a user asks "how does X work across UAE, KSA, and Lebanon?" or "what are the pros and cons of these two structures?", a prose answer forces the reader to do the comparison themselves. A table does it for them. This skill governs when and how to build comparison tables that are accurate, readable, and decision-useful.
When to use this
Use a comparison table when:
- The question spans 2+ jurisdictions or 2+ legal options
- Each option has the same set of relevant attributes (statute, threshold, consequence, etc.)
- The user needs to make a decision or recommendation based on the comparison
- The output will be shared with a non-lawyer audience who needs a scannable summary
Do not use a comparison table when:
- There is only one jurisdiction / one option (use IRAC or BLUF)
- The comparison attributes differ significantly between options (use a narrative instead)
- The table would require more than 6 columns (break into two tables or use a narrative)
Standard pattern
| Aspect | Option A / Jurisdiction A | Option B / Jurisdiction B | Option C / Jurisdiction C |
|--------|--------------------------|--------------------------|--------------------------|
| Governing instrument | … | … | … |
| Key threshold / limit | … | … | … |
| Enforceability | … | … | … |
| Formality requirement | … | … | … |
| Regulatory filing | … | … | … |
| Cost / timing | … | … | … |
| **Summary / recommendation** | … | … | … |
End the table with a bold Summary / recommendation row. Follow the table with a narrative paragraph identifying the preferred option and the decision factors.
Construction rules
Same row order for every column. Apples-to-apples comparison requires that each column addresses the same attribute in the same row. Do not re-order attributes between columns.
Same level of detail per cell. If one cell has a specific article citation, every equivalent cell must have one (or explicitly say "no equivalent provision" or "[not available — verify]").
Cite per cell where it matters. For any cell containing a legal rule or threshold, include the citation in the cell:
UAE FDL 33/2021 art 10 — max 2 years
Flag uncertainty inline. If data for a cell is uncertain: [unverified — confirm with local counsel]. Do not leave cells blank or populated with guesses.
Use a summary row, not a separate section. The recommendation belongs in the last row of the table and in the follow-on paragraph — not buried three paragraphs later.
Example — non-compete enforceability
| Aspect | Lebanon | KSA | UAE (federal) | DIFC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Governing instrument | Labor Code arts 35-36 | Labor Law RD M/51; HRSD guidelines | FDL 33/2021 art 10; Cabinet Decision 1/2022 | DIFC Employment Law (DIFC Law 4/2021) |
| Statutory max duration | Not specified; courts assess case-by-case | Up to 2 years | Up to 2 years | "Reasonable" (common-law test) |
| Geographic scope limit | Proportionate to employer's market presence | Proportionate to employer interest | Proportionate to protected interest (Cabinet Decision 1/2022) | Reasonableness standard |
| Consideration required | Recommended; improves enforceability | Not required | Not required | Not required |
| Court approach to excess | Void or narrow (split in case law) | Reduce to reasonable scope | Equitable reduction — courts prefer narrowing to voiding | Common-law severance / blue pencil |
| Notarisation required | Recommended for evidentiary clarity | Not mandatory | Not mandatory | No |
| Enforceability rating | Mixed — depends heavily on judge | Moderate — proportionality enforced | High if proportionate and justified | High if reasonable and supported by consideration |
| Recommendation | Include but do not over-rely | Proportionate scope critical | Preferred jurisdiction for enforcement | Preferred for senior / IP-sensitive roles |
Sources: LB Labor Code arts 35-36; Saudi Labor Law RD M/51; UAE FDL 33/2021 art 10; Cabinet Decision 1/2022; DIFC Law 4/2021.
Example — deal structure comparison
| Aspect | Asset Purchase | Share Purchase | Joint Venture |
|---|---|---|---|
| Target | Specific assets + liabilities | 100% of target entity | New or existing co-owned entity |
| Liability exposure | Buyer takes only selected liabilities | Buyer inherits all historical liabilities | Shared proportionate to stake |
| UAE regulatory filing | May trigger FDI approval (if strategic sector) | Triggers commercial register transfer | MoA / JV agreement + commercial register |
| Stamp duty / transfer tax | Transfer fees on real assets | Share transfer fees (if any) | Registration fees |
| IP transfer | Explicit assignment needed per IP type | IP stays in entity | Licensing or assignment by agreement |
| Employment | TUPE-equivalent under UAE labor law | Employees stay with entity | New employment contracts typically required |
| Complexity / timing | Moderate | Lower (cleaner) | Highest |
| Recommendation | Preferred when liability ring-fencing is essential | Preferred for clean acquisitions | Preferred for strategic partnerships / growth markets |
Best practices for MENA multi-jurisdiction tables
- Always include DIFC / ADGM as a separate column from UAE-onshore — the legal frameworks are materially different (common-law vs civil-law influenced).
- For KSA: note that both Hijri and Gregorian dates may appear in source instruments.
- For Lebanon: flag currency / enforcement instability as a separate risk row where relevant.
- For Egypt: include a "Cassation court position" row for any topic where Egyptian jurisprudence varies from the statute's plain text.
- For GCC comparisons: flag whether the rule is federal (KSA, UAE) or emirate-level (Abu Dhabi, Dubai DIFC).
Pair with
After the table, always add:
- A narrative paragraph: "Based on the above, [preferred option/jurisdiction] is recommended because [1–3 reasons]."
- Sources block per [[output-source-attribution-block]].
- If any cell is uncertain, a section: "Information to verify" listing the uncertain cells and the steps to confirm them.
Related skills
- [[output-irac-structure]]
- [[output-inline-citations-with-pinpoints]]
- [[output-source-attribution-block]]
- [[output-partner-memo-style]]
- [[research-jurisdiction-comparison]]