Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 92-2 (1992) · Advertising - Misstating Credentials
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
Engineer A Six-Month Inaction Firm Principal Escalation Obligation
prevails over
Engineer A Inadvertent Licensure Violation Collegial Counsel Before Reporting Discipline Error
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Obligation to Escalate After Failed Initial Notification
Firm Negligent-Origin Inaction Non-Excuse After Actual Knowledge Obligation
prevails over
BER 90-4 Firm Principal Non-Key-Employee Brochure Listing Permissibility Assessment
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- BER 83-1 vs BER 90-4 Intent-Differentiated Assessment
- Marketing Director Acknowledged-But-Uncorrected Error After Six Months
Featured
Engineer A Self-Policing Profession Peer Misconduct Reporting Discipline Misrepresentation
prevails over
Engineer A Inadvertent Licensure Violation Collegial Counsel Before Reporting Discipline Error
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Obligation to Escalate After Failed Initial Notification
BER 83-1 Firm Principal Post-Departure Brochure Distribution Prohibition Obligation
prevails over
Firm Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Test — BER 90-4 Neither Element Clearly Satisfied
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- BER 83-1 Post-Termination Key Employee Brochure Misrepresentation
Firm Engineering Discipline Misrepresentation Prohibition Engineer A Marketing Campaign
prevails over
BER 90-4 Firm Principal Non-Key-Employee Brochure Listing Permissibility Assessment
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- BER 83-1 vs BER 90-4 Intent-Differentiated Assessment
- Marketing Director Acknowledged-But-Uncorrected Error After Six Months
Firm Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Misrepresentation Test Discipline Marketing Campaign
prevails over
BER 90-4 Firm Marketing Currency Correction Obligation Despite Non-Violation Finding
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- BER 90-4 Departing Hydrology Engineer Routine Listing Oversight
Engineer A Discipline-Specific Misrepresentation Internal Escalation Firm Principal
prevails over
Engineer A Inadvertent Licensure Violation Collegial Counsel Before Reporting Discipline Error
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Obligation to Escalate After Failed Initial Notification
Marketing Director Expeditious Discipline Error Correction Obligation
prevails over
Marketing Director Promised Correction Follow-Through Six Month Inaction
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Marketing Director Acknowledged-But-Uncorrected Error After Six Months
Open tensions recorded without a resolution:
BER 83-1 Firm Principal Post-Departure Brochure Distribution Prohibition Obligation vs BER 90-4 Firm Principal Non-Key-Employee Brochure Listing Permissibility Assessment
Engineer A Initial Collegial Notification Obligation — Met vs Engineer A Six-Month Inaction Firm Principal Escalation Obligation
Firm Engineering Discipline Misrepresentation Prohibition Engineer A Marketing Campaign vs Firm Truthful Non-Deceptive Advertising Discipline Misrepresentation Marketing Campaign
Firm Firm Brochure Engineering Title Audit Correction Engineer A Discipline vs Firm Negligent-Origin Inaction Non-Excuse After Actual Knowledge Obligation
What the board concluded
- Engineer A should raise the issue of the error with a principal in the firm and note the appropriate requirements under the state board's rules of professional conduct in writing.