Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 01-1 (2001) · Employment—Questioning Ability Of Former Employer
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 B Self-Policing Peer Misconduct Reporting Obligation
prevails over
Engineer B Competitive Peer Misconduct Reporting Motivation Transparency
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Firm X Conflict of Interest State — Engineer A Competitive Conduct
Engineer A Non-Competition Representation Fidelity Violation
prevails over
Engineer A Departing Engineer Client Solicitation Honesty Obligation
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Post-Employment Non-Compete Misrepresentation
Engineer A Competitor Reputation Injury Predictive Disparagement Violation
prevails over
Engineer A Artfully Misleading Client Representations
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A False Capacity Disparagement to Firm X Clients — Discussion Reaffirmation
- Engineer A Former Employer Client Solicitation with Capacity Disparagement
Engineer A Self-Caused Staff Departure Non-Exploitation Violation
prevails over
Engineer A Competitor Reputation Injury Predictive Disparagement Violation
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Former Employer Client Solicitation with Capacity Disparagement
- Engineer A Non-Principal Employee Status at Firm X
Open tensions recorded without a resolution:
Engineer A Artfully Misleading Client Representations vs Engineer A Departing Engineer Client Solicitation Honesty Obligation
Engineer A Collegial Obligation Non-Disparagement of Firm X vs Engineer A Competitor Reputation Injury Predictive Disparagement Violation
Engineer A Competitor Reputation Injury Predictive Disparagement Violation vs Engineer A Non-Competition Representation Fidelity Violation
What the board concluded
- It was ethical for Engineer A to offer a position to Engineer C.
- It was not ethical for Engineer A to make representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, that Firm X will be “hard pressed” to perform successfully on its projects and that Firm X’s clients should hire Firm Y to perform engineering services.