Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 94-5 (1994) · Conflict Of Interest Providing Both City Engineer And Inspection Services
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
BER-62-7 County Commission Engineer Conflict of Interest Non-Engagement
prevails over
BER-74-2 Municipal Engineer Small Municipality Public Interest Dual-Role
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- BER Case 62-7 County Commission Engineer Dual-Role Conflict
Firm A City-Retained Engineer Multi-Role Conflict Non-Engagement
prevails over
Firm A Developer Client Conflict Disclosure to City
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Firm A Multi-Role Structural Conflict — Design, Review, and Inspection for Same Parties
Firm A Faithful Agent City Client Interest Primacy
prevails over
Firm A City Position Marketing Non-Exploitation
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Firm A Public-Role Marketing to Developer Prospects
Firm A City-Retained Engineer Multi-Role Conflict Non-Engagement
prevails over
BER-74-2 Municipal Engineer Small Municipality Public Interest Dual-Role
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- BER Case 62-7 County Commission Engineer Dual-Role Conflict
Firm A City-Retained Engineer Multi-Role Conflict Non-Engagement
prevails over
BER-82-4 Engineer A Multi-Role Review-Recommendation Non-Decision Boundary
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Firm A Multi-Role Structural Conflict — Design, Review, and Inspection for Same Parties
Firm A Self-Design-Review Prohibition
prevails over
Firm A Developer Client Inspection Objectivity Preservation
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Conflict of Interest State — Firm A City and Developer Dual Engagement
Firm A City Infrastructure Standard Primacy in Inspection
prevails over
Firm A Inspection Quality Non-Subordination to Developer Approval Incentive
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Firm A Developer-Compensated Public Review and Inspection Services
- Firm A Reduced-Scope Public Service Marketing Suspicion
Firm A City-Retained Engineer Multi-Role Conflict Non-Engagement
prevails over
Firm A Developer Client Conflict Proactive Disclosure to City
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Firm A Multi-Role Structural Conflict — Design, Review, and Inspection for Same Parties
Firm A Public Role Marketing Exploitation Prohibition
prevails over
Firm A Competitive Fairness Non-Exploitation of City Contract
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Firm A Public Role Marketing Tool Exploitation
Open tensions recorded without a resolution:
BER-62-7 County Commission Engineer Conflict of Interest Non-Engagement vs BER-62-7 County Commission Engineer Divided Loyalty Recognition
BER-62-7 County Commission Engineer Conflict of Interest Non-Engagement vs BER-74-2 BER-62-7 Precedent Reconciliation Acknowledgment
BER-75-7 Commission Member Engineer Abstention Compliance vs Firm A City-Retained Engineer Multi-Role Conflict Non-Engagement
Firm A City Infrastructure Standard Primacy in Inspection vs Firm A Compensating-Party Benefiting-Party Misalignment Non-Engagement
Firm A City Position Marketing Non-Exploitation vs Firm A Competitive Fairness Non-Exploitation of City Contract
Firm A Compensating-Party Benefiting-Party Misalignment Non-Engagement vs Firm A Inspection Quality Non-Subordination to Developer Approval Incentive
Firm A Developer Client Inspection Objectivity Preservation vs Firm A Dual-Service Private Developer Prohibition
What the board concluded
- It was unethical for Engineer A to serve as city engineer and also provide review and inspection services for private developers within the city.