Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 22-4 (2022) · Duty to Report Misconduct
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 Doe Post-Termination Environmental Regulatory Reporting
prevails over
Multi-Jurisdiction Ethics Review Obligation Engineer A Both States
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Rule Stringency Differential
Engineer A Competitor Misconduct Reporting State Z Licensing Board
prevails over
Engineer A Anonymous Complaint Licensing Board Reporting
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Anonymous Complaint Filing
Engineer A Jurisdiction-Specific Threshold Analysis State Z Reporting Required
prevails over
Engineer A Jurisdiction-Specific Threshold Analysis State Q No Reporting
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Rule Stringency Differential
Engineer B Project-Level Attribution State Z Proposal
prevails over
Honesty in Professional Representations Obligation XYZ Engineers Qualification Proposals Both States
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer B State Z Attribution Non-Compliance
- XYZ Engineers Partial Attribution Disclosure in Qualifications Proposals
Project-Level Attribution Obligation XYZ Engineers Engineer B State Z Proposals
prevails over
Qualification Proposal Misrepresentation Non-Commission Obligation XYZ Engineers State Q
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer B State Q Attribution Ambiguity
Engineer A Jurisdiction-Specific Threshold Analysis State Z Reporting Required
prevails over
Competitor Qualification Proposal Misconduct Reporting Obligation Engineer A State Z
No State context committed for this edge.
Engineer A Proportionate Characterization State Q Proposal Analysis
prevails over
Competitor Qualification Proposal Misconduct Reporting Obligation Engineer A State Q
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Rule Stringency Differential
- Engineer B State Q Attribution Ambiguity
Open tensions recorded without a resolution:
Competitor Qualification Proposal Misconduct Reporting Obligation Engineer A State Z vs Engineer A Competitor Misconduct Reporting State Z Licensing Board
Engineer B Maximum Clarity Attribution State Q Proposal vs Qualification Proposal Misrepresentation Non-Commission Obligation XYZ Engineers State Q
Engineer B Prior Employer Credit Scope Limitation State Q State Z vs Engineer B Project-Level Attribution State Z Proposal
Honesty in Professional Representations Obligation XYZ Engineers Qualification Proposals Both States vs Jurisdiction-Specific Licensing Rule Compliance Obligation XYZ Engineers Engineer B Both States
What the board concluded
- The proposal practices of Engineer B and XYZ Engineers were not unethical from the perspective of the NSPE Code of Ethics.