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