Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 98-4 (1998) · Expert Witness Testimony - Serving Plaintiffs And Defendants
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
Engineer A Engineer Autonomy Non-Subordination to Legal Profession Bar Analogy in Product Liability Engagement
prevails over
Engineer A Non-Absolute Former Client Loyalty Recognition in ABC Manufacturing Adverse Engagement
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Absolute Loyalty Boundary Determination
- NSPE Conflict Disclosure Norm Evolution Active
- Unrelated Matters Factual Separation Across Three Engagements
Engineer A Non-Advocate Objectivity Maintained Across ABC Manufacturing and Attorney X Engagements
prevails over
Engineer A Non-Absolute Former Client Loyalty Recognition in ABC Manufacturing Adverse Engagement
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Absolute Loyalty Boundary Determination
- NSPE Conflict Disclosure Norm Evolution Active
- Unrelated Matters Factual Separation Across Three Engagements
Engineer A Conflict of Interest Appearance Non-Equivalence to Actual Conflict Recognition in Multi-Party Litigation
prevails over
Engineer A Multi-Matter Forensic Engagement Prior Relationship Proactive Disclosure to Attorney X
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Attorney X Plaintiff Retention Against ABC Manufacturing
Engineer A Individual Engineering Judgment Autonomy Preservation in Adverse Former Client Engagement Decision
prevails over
Engineer A Non-Absolute Former Client Loyalty Recognition in ABC Manufacturing Adverse Engagement
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Absolute Loyalty Boundary Determination
- NSPE Conflict Disclosure Norm Evolution Active
- Unrelated Matters Factual Separation Across Three Engagements
Featured
Engineer A Conflict of Interest Disclosure Evolution Compliance in Multi-Party Litigation History
prevails over
Engineer A Non-Absolute Former Client Loyalty Recognition in ABC Manufacturing Adverse Engagement
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Absolute Loyalty Boundary Determination
- NSPE Conflict Disclosure Norm Evolution Active
- Unrelated Matters Factual Separation Across Three Engagements
Engineer A Unrelated Matter Adverse Forensic Engagement Permissibility Assertion in ABC Manufacturing Product Liability Matter
prevails over
Engineer A Former Client Adversarial Proceeding Consent Prerequisite Non-Application Unrelated Matter
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Unrelated Matters Factual Separation Across Three Engagements
Engineer A Expert Witness Engineering Non-Advocate Objectivity Across Multi-Party Engagements
prevails over
Engineer A Non-Absolute Former Client Loyalty Recognition in ABC Manufacturing Adverse Engagement
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Absolute Loyalty Boundary Determination
- NSPE Conflict Disclosure Norm Evolution Active
- Unrelated Matters Factual Separation Across Three Engagements
Engineer A Unrelated Matter Adverse Forensic Engagement Permissibility Assertion in ABC Manufacturing Product Liability Matter
prevails over
Engineer A Switching Sides Prohibition Non-Application Recognition Unrelated Product Liability Matter
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Unrelated Matters Factual Separation Across Three Engagements
Open tensions recorded without a resolution:
Engineer A Former Client Adversarial Proceeding Consent Prerequisite Non-Application Unrelated Matter vs Engineer A Unrelated Matter Adverse Engagement Permissibility Assertion ABC Manufacturing Product Liability
Engineer A Multi-Matter Prior Relationship Proactive Disclosure to Attorney X vs Engineer A Non-Absolute Former Client Loyalty Boundary Recognition ABC Manufacturing Product Liability
Engineer A Switching Sides Prohibition Non-Application Recognition Unrelated Product Liability Matter vs Engineer A Unrelated Matter Adverse Engagement Permissibility Assertion ABC Manufacturing Product Liability
What the board concluded
- It was ethical for Engineer A to provide services to the parties in the manner described under the facts.