Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 09-10 (2009) · Withholding Information Useful to Client/Public Agency
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
Review Engineer A Peer Review Safety Code Sequential Escalation BER 96-8
prevails over
Review Engineer A Confidentiality Non-Override of Public Safety BER 96-8
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- BER 96-8 Peer Review Safety Violation Discovery
Featured
Engineer A Collegial Counsel to Engineer X Before Board Report
prevails over
Engineer A Competitor Unlicensed Firm Practice State Board Report XYZ Engineering
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Collegial Correction Priority Before Formal Reporting
Open tensions recorded without a resolution:
Engineer A Competitive Interest Non-Subordination of Reporting Duty State P vs Engineer A Reporting Motivation Purity Competitive Interest Scrutiny
Engineer A Competitor Unlicensed Firm Practice State Board Report XYZ Engineering vs Engineer A Non-Immediate Board Reporting for Engineer X Inadvertent Violation
What the board concluded
- Engineer A should communicate with Engineer X to obtain clarification regarding the matter in question.
- If Engineer A is not sufficiently satisfied with Engineer X's explanation, Engineer A may be required to report this matter to the state engineering licensure board.