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
Featured
Mutual Disparagement Independent Ethical Responsibility Both Parties No First-Stone Excuse
prevails over
Mutual Disparagement Non-Excuse Symmetry Both Parties
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Mutual Capacity Disparagement Between Firm A and Firm B
Firm B Engineers Supplanting Rule Non-Application Former Clients No Active Contract
prevails over
Engineer A Supplanting Protest Competitive Motivation Non-Weaponization
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Firm B Supplanting Allegation Against Departing Engineers
Purpose-to-Obstruct Standard Applied Both Parties Section 12 Violation
prevails over
Competitive Solicitation Honest Non-Disparaging Communication Both Parties Violation
No State context committed for this edge.
Firm B Specialized Knowledge Former Client Project Competition Constraint
prevails over
Firm B Engineers Supplanting Rule Non-Application Former Clients No Active Contract
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Firm B Specialized Project Knowledge Solicitation Restriction
- Free and Open Competition Framework Governing Engineering Firm Competition
- Prior Client Relationship Leverage by Departed Engineers
Engineer A Self-Interest-Tainted Capability Disparagement Violation
prevails over
Engineer A Honest Non-Deceptive Competitive Reassurance Communication
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Self-Interest Contaminated Criticism of Firm B
Firm B Engineers Self-Interest-Tainted Capability Disparagement Violation
prevails over
Firm B Honest Non-Deceptive Competitive Solicitation Communication
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Firm B Self-Interest Contaminated Criticism of Engineer A
Open tensions recorded without a resolution:
At-Will Departure Four Engineers Firm B Formation Non-Ethical-Violation vs Firm B Engineers Pre-Departure Internal Discussion Non-Violation Recognition
Competitive Solicitation Honest Non-Disparaging Communication Both Parties Violation vs Firm B Non-Supplanting Permissibility Former Client Solicitation
Engineer A Disparagement of Firm B Qualification to Former Clients vs Engineer A Honest Non-Deceptive Competitive Reassurance Communication
Firm B Disparagement of Engineer A Capability to Former Clients vs Firm B Honest Non-Deceptive Competitive Solicitation Communication
Firm B Non-Supplanting Permissibility Former Client Solicitation vs Firm B Specialized Knowledge Former Client Project Competition Constraint
Firm B Specialized Knowledge Former Client Project Competition Constraint vs Four Departing Engineers At-Will Departure Competitive Formation Non-Violation
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.