Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 85-4 (1985) · Objectivity of Engineer Retained as Expert
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
Engineer A Conflict of Interest Avoidance Divided Loyalty Violation
prevails over
Engineer A Independent Report Pledge Non-Cure Violation
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Confidential Information Access from Plaintiff
- Engineer A Cross-Side Retention by Defendant Attorney
- Same-Proceeding Cross-Side Engagement Absolute Prohibition
Engineer A Switching Sides Prohibition Violation Same Personal Injury Matter
prevails over
Engineer A Independent Report Pledge Non-Cure Violation
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Confidential Information Access from Plaintiff
- Engineer A Cross-Side Retention by Defendant Attorney
- Same-Proceeding Cross-Side Engagement Absolute Prohibition
Attorney Z Plaintiff-Side Retaining Attorney Client-Transmitted Confidentiality Trigger
prevails over
Engineer A Termination Non-Cure of Same-Matter Adversarial Conflict Violation
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Confidential Plaintiff Information Held Post-Termination
- Engineer A Continuing Post-Termination Loyalty to Plaintiff's Attorney
- Same-Proceeding Cross-Side Engagement Absolute Prohibition
Switching Sides Prohibition Violated By Engineer A Accepting Defense Retention In Same Personal Injury Case
prevails over
Engineer A Termination Non-Cure of Same-Matter Adversarial Conflict Violation
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Confidential Plaintiff Information Held Post-Termination
- Engineer A Continuing Post-Termination Loyalty to Plaintiff's Attorney
- Same-Proceeding Cross-Side Engagement Absolute Prohibition
Engineer A Proceeding-Duration Former Client Loyalty Persistence Obligation Violation
prevails over
Engineer A Termination Non-Cure of Same-Matter Adversarial Conflict Violation
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Confidential Plaintiff Information Held Post-Termination
- Engineer A Continuing Post-Termination Loyalty to Plaintiff's Attorney
- Same-Proceeding Cross-Side Engagement Absolute Prohibition
Former Client Adversarial Proceeding Consent Prerequisite Violated By Engineer A Same Matter Defense Engagement
prevails over
Engineer A Independent Report Pledge Non-Cure Violation
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Confidential Information Access from Plaintiff
- Engineer A Cross-Side Retention by Defendant Attorney
- Same-Proceeding Cross-Side Engagement Absolute Prohibition
Engineer A Forensic Expert Honesty and Integrity Correctly Applied Initial Engagement
prevails over
Engineer A Forensic Expert Witness Objectivity Correctly Applied Initial Engagement
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Cross-Side Retention in Active Litigation
- Same-Proceeding Cross-Side Engagement Absolute Prohibition
Engineer A Former Client Adversarial Proceeding Consent Prerequisite Violation
prevails over
Engineer A Termination Non-Cure of Same-Matter Adversarial Conflict Violation
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Confidential Plaintiff Information Held Post-Termination
- Engineer A Continuing Post-Termination Loyalty to Plaintiff's Attorney
- Same-Proceeding Cross-Side Engagement Absolute Prohibition
Engineer A Former Client Confidentiality Perpetuation Post-Termination
prevails over
Engineer A Termination Non-Cure of Same-Matter Adversarial Conflict Violation
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Confidential Plaintiff Information Held Post-Termination
- Engineer A Continuing Post-Termination Loyalty to Plaintiff's Attorney
- Same-Proceeding Cross-Side Engagement Absolute Prohibition
Open tensions recorded without a resolution:
Attorney Z Plaintiff-Side Retaining Attorney Client-Transmitted Confidentiality Trigger vs Engineer A Forensic Expert Witness Objectivity Correctly Applied Initial Engagement
Engineer A Conflict of Interest Avoidance Divided Loyalty Violation vs Engineer A Forensic Expert Witness Objectivity Correctly Applied Initial Engagement
Engineer A Forensic Expert Honesty and Integrity Correctly Applied Initial Engagement vs Engineer A Switching Sides Prohibition Violation Same Personal Injury Matter
Engineer A Forensic Expert Witness Objectivity Correctly Applied Initial Engagement vs Engineer A Former Client Confidentiality Perpetuation Post-Termination
Engineer A Former Client Adversarial Proceeding Consent Prerequisite Violation vs Engineer A Independent Report Pledge Non-Cure Violation
What the board concluded
- It was unethical for Engineer A to agree to provide a separate engineering and safety analysis report.