Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 22-8 (2022) · Independence of Peer Reviewer
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.
dissolution
Given that Engineer B declined only the covert condition and remained willing to serve Owner once Engineer A was notified, the Board concluded that faithful agency and the notification duty were not in true conflict, since serving Owner's substantive interest never required concealment from Engineer A.
specification
Given Owner's instruction for a covert review and Engineer B's insistence on advising Engineer A first, the board concluded that faithful agency to Owner does not extend to executing instructions that conceal review from the engineer whose work is being scrutinized.
What the board concluded
- Engineer B is ethically required to make certain that Engineer A is advised of the planned peer review. It is not necessary for Engineer B to provide that notice personally, but Engineer B must know either that Engineer A has been advised or that Engineer A has been terminated from the project.
- Owner and Engineer B are not required to obtain Engineer A’s consent to the peer review, merely to assure that Engineer A has been informed of the peer review. Especially in the face of known design defects in the first tower, Engineer A may not ethically object to the peer review.
Recorded violations:
Refusal to Consent violates Engineer A Public Safety Duty
Refusal to Consent violates Engineer A Client Best Interest Duty
Refusal to Consent violates Engineer A Error Acknowledgment Duty