Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 11-12 (2011) · Reviewing Work of Another Engineer and Thereafter Performing Engineering Services for Client
Professional obligations conflict, and the board applies no fixed rule for which one wins.
Each resolution is recorded as three edges:
competesWith (the tension),
prevailsOver (the obligation the board allowed to win in this case), and
defeasibleUnder (the situation under which the yielding obligation gives way).
The same tension is then traced across comparable cases, where its resolution shifts with context.
Hover any obligation or state to see its definition; click to open it in OntServe.
How this case resolved it
Featured
Engineer A Candid Performance Assessment of Engineer B Road Project
prevails over
Engineer B Professional Dignity Protection in Performance Evaluation
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
No State context committed for this edge.
Engineer A Prohibition on Accepting Road Design Contract After Advisory and Evaluative Role
prevails over
Engineer A Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits Smithtown Road Project
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Conflict of Interest State Engineer A Smithtown Road Project
Engineer A Candid Performance Assessment of Engineer B Road Project
prevails over
Engineer A Terminated Contractor Professional Dignity Protection
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Official Review Authority Used to Displace Engineer B
Engineer A Advisory Role to Design Contractor Transition Prohibition
prevails over
Engineer A Faithful Agent Advisory Service to Smithtown Within Ethical Limits
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Conflict of Interest State Engineer A Smithtown Road Project
Engineer A Prohibition on Accepting Road Design Contract After Advisory and Evaluative Role
prevails over
Small Municipality Smithtown Public Welfare Engineering Access Facilitation
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Advisory Role Design Work Categorical Ineligibility
Engineer A Advisory Role to Design Contractor Transition Prohibition
prevails over
Engineer A Conflict of Interest Disclosure Evolution Compliance
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Advisory Role Design Work Categorical Ineligibility
- Engineer A Firm Road Design Self-Review Prohibition
Open tensions recorded without a resolution:
Engineer A Advisory Role to Design Contractor Transition Prohibition vs Engineer A Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits Smithtown Road Project
Engineer A Advisory Role to Design Contractor Transition Prohibition vs Small Municipality Smithtown Public Welfare Engineering Access Facilitation
Engineer A Candid Performance Assessment of Engineer B Road Project vs Engineer A Competitive Conflict of Interest Disclosure Before Advisory Critique
Engineer A Candid Performance Assessment of Engineer B Road Project vs Engineer A Part-Time Municipal Engineer Impartial Performance Evaluation
Engineer A Competitive Procurement Fairness Smithtown Road Project vs Engineer A Faithful Agent Advisory Service to Smithtown Within Ethical Limits
Engineer A Faithful Agent Advisory Service to Smithtown Within Ethical Limits vs Engineer A Prohibition on Accepting Road Design Contract After Advisory and Evaluative Role
What the board concluded
- It is ethical for Engineer A to contact Smithtown and advise the town that Engineer B’s performance on the contract did not meet the standards as outlined in Engineer B’s contract with the town.
- It would not be ethical for Engineer A to offer and agree to perform the work for Smithtown.
How comparable cases resolved the same tension
A faithful-agent duty yields to a public-protection obligation. The yielding obligation ("Faithful Agent") recurs across cases; the obligation that overrides it and the context under which it yields differ case by case. This is the case-law move: not a single rule, but a family of context-indexed resolutions.
| Case | Obligation that prevailed | Yielding obligation | Context (defeasibleUnder) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
24-01
Balancing Client Directives and Public...
|
Engineer L Client Budget Pressure Refusal | Engineer L Faithful Agent Boundary | Engineer L Confirmed Risk Without Safeguards; Engineer L Resource Constrained Client |
| Engineer L Client Override Regulatory Report | Engineer L Faithful Agent Boundary | Engineer L Confirmed Risk Without Safeguards; Engineer L Resource Constrained Client | |
|
20-4
Public Health, Safety, and...
|
Engineer B Post-Override Regulatory Reporting | Engineer B Faithful Agent Boundary | MWC Override of Engineers A and B |
| Engineer A Post-Override Regulatory Reporting | Engineer A Faithful Agent Boundary | MWC Override of Engineers A and B | |
|
95-5
Failure To Include Information In...
|
Engineer B Expert Witness Neutrality | Engineer B Faithful Agent Boundary | Engineer B Adversarial Engagement; Engineer B Client Defense Bias |
| Engineer B Complete Technical Reporting | Engineer B Faithful Agent Boundary | Engineer B Adversarial Engagement; Engineer B Client Defense Bias | |
|
04-8
Public Welfare—Client Action Following...
|
Engineer A Safety Obligation Wetland Fill | Engineer A Faithful Agent Limits Wetland | Engineer A Confirmed Environmental Risk; Engineer A Faithful Agent Duty Conflict |
| Engineer A Wetland Confidentiality Limits | Engineer A Faithful Agent Limits Wetland | Engineer A Confirmed Environmental Risk; Engineer A Faithful Agent Duty Conflict |