Obligation-Conflict Resolution

Case 19-3 (2019) · Expert Witness—Chair of Standards and Safety Committee

Case Precedents
How this case resolved it

No obligation was overridden in this case: the board resolved the apparent tension without defeat, as recorded below.

Resolved without defeat

The board resolved the apparent tension here by setting a duty's boundary (specification) or by finding no genuine conflict on the facts (dissolution), rather than by allowing one obligation to prevail over another.

specification
Analytical conclusion 5: Regarding Q201 and Q203, the Board implicitly resolves th...
Given that Engineer A's disagreement with Engineer B is technical rather than personal, the board concluded that issuing an adverse opinion does not breach respect obligations, because respect attaches to the person and shared role, not to protection of contested technical claims.
specification
Analytical conclusion 1: The apparent tension between Independent Judgment as Expe...
Given that Engineer A must issue a truthful adverse opinion while maintaining a collegial committee relationship with Engineer B, the board resolved the tension by treating respect as a constraint on interpersonal behavior rather than a limit on substantive findings, allowing full honesty without disrespect.
What the board concluded
From the Board's conclusions in Case 19-3:
  • Engineer A’s role as a private forensic engineering expert should not present any clear or apparent conflict of interest.
  • Engineer A has an obligation to (1) fully disclose to Attorney X his role as the chairman of the boiler code standards and safety committee within an engineering society, and (2) advise Attorney X that Engineer B serves a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee.
  • Engineer A has an obligation to be respectful of Engineer B in his role as a member of one of the technical subcommittees within the boiler code standards and safety committee and also not engage in any written or verbal exchanges with Engineer B regarding the pending litigation without direction from legal counsel.
Case texts: National Society of Professional Engineers, Board of Ethical Review.

NOTE: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review considers ethical cases involving either real or hypothetical matters submitted to it from NSPE members, other engineers, public officials, and members of the public. The BER reviews each case in the context of the NSPE Code of Ethics and earlier BER opinions. The facts contained in each case do not necessarily represent all of the pertinent facts submitted to or reviewed by the BER and shall not be considered a direct evaluation of any real matter that may have been submitted.

Each opinion is intended as guidance to individual practicing engineers, students, and the public. In regard to the question of application of the NSPE Code of Ethics to engineering organizations (e.g., corporations, partnerships, sole proprietorships, government agencies, and university engineering departments), the specific business form or type should not negate nor detract from the conformance of individuals to the Code. The NSPE Code deals with professional services, which must be performed by real persons. Real persons in turn establish and implement policies within business structures.

This opinion is for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. It may be reprinted without further permission, provided that this statement is included before or after the text of the case and appropriate attribution is provided to the National Society of Professional Engineers' Board of Ethical Review.

© Licensed under the GNU GPL v3