Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 77-11 (1977) · Supplanting - Promotion of Work by Former Employees
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
Analytical conclusion 4: In response to Q201, the tension between Loyalty During E...
Given that the four engineers' solicitation occurred after their employment ended and was based on general professional standing rather than confidential specifics, the Board concluded fair competition governs post-employment conduct, while loyalty strictly bounds the employment period itself.
specification
Analytical conclusion 5: Addressing Q202, the tension between Objectivity in Peer...
Given that both firms were vying for the same clients and each made disparaging statements about the other's competence, the Board concluded that framing this as mere aggressive marketing could not excuse the conduct, because the peer criticism standard applies independently of the competitive context in which the remarks were made.
specification
Analytical conclusion 1: The tension between Loyalty During Employment and Fair Co...
Because some client relationships were general while specific project knowledge existed for particular engagements, the Board resolved the loyalty versus competition tension by permitting general solicitation but treating knowledge-based solicitation as an encumbered exception.
What the board concluded
- The four engineers who founded firm B did not violate the Code of Ethics by generally seeking work from former clients of Engineer A, but they were in violation of the code with regard to projects for which they had particular knowledge while in the employ of A.
- The four engineers comprising Firm B acted unethically in casting doubt on the ability of Engineer A to provide quality services.
- Engineer A acted unethically in casting doubt on the ability of Firm B to provide quality services.
Recorded violations:
Disparagement of Competitor violates Engineer A Objective Criticism Duty
Counter-Disparagement of Competitor violates Engineer A Objective Criticism Duty