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
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 1: The case resolves the tension between Loyalty Limits to F...
Because the two matters were unrelated and the first engagement had concluded, the board resolved the tension by defining the faithful agent duty as matter-bound, which freed Engineer A to accept the adverse engagement without a disclosure obligation or conflict violation.
specification
Analytical conclusion 3: The implicit reliance on Conflict Disclosure Over Avoidan...
Given that Engineer A's engagements with ABC Manufacturing spanned unrelated matters with no substantive or confidential overlap, the Board concluded that her failure to proactively disclose the prior relationship was not an ethical lapse, because the disclosure duty under Conflict Disclosure Over Avoidance is activated only by genuine, matter-related...
What the board concluded
- It was ethical for Engineer A to provide services to the parties in the manner described under the facts.