Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 18-10 (2018) · Conflict of Interest—Peer Reviewer Participating on Subsequent Joint Venture
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 Peer Review Safety Code Violation Sequential Escalation BER 96-8
prevails over
Engineer A Peer Review Program Collegial Improvement Participation BER 96-8
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Peer Review Safety Violation Discovery
Featured
ABC Engineering Post-Review Design-Build Conflict Disclosure to State Agency
prevails over
ABC Engineering Post-Review Design-Build Participation Agency Approval Prerequisite
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- ABC Engineering Insider Knowledge Advantage
- ABC Engineering Prior Review Participation Conflict
Engineer A Peer Review Safety Code Violation Sequential Escalation BER 96-8
prevails over
Engineer A Peer Review Confidentiality Agreement Signing BER 96-8
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Peer Review Safety Violation Discovery
Open tensions recorded without a resolution:
ABC Engineering Peer Review Privileged Access Non-Exploitation Design-Build vs ABC Engineering Post-Peer-Review Design-Build Participation Conflict Assessment
ABC Engineering Peer Review Privileged Access Non-Exploitation Design-Build vs Engineer A Lead Peer Reviewer Conflict of Interest Disclosure to Retaining Attorney or Agency
ABC Engineering Peer Review Privileged Access Non-Exploitation in Design-Build Procurement vs ABC Engineering Post-Review Design-Build Conflict Disclosure to State Agency
ABC Engineering Peer Review Privileged Access Non-Exploitation in Design-Build Procurement vs ABC Engineering Post-Review Design-Build Participation Agency Approval Prerequisite
Firm A Dual-Role City Engineer Private Developer Service Conflict BER 94-5 vs Firm A Public Agency Role Marketing Exploitation BER 94-5
What the board concluded
- It would not be unethical for Engineer A and his firm ABC Engineering to participate in a design-build joint venture and submit a proposal for the major road transportation project, as long as the state agency approves and the work complies with state laws and regulations.