Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 65-9 (1965) · Public Criticism of Proposed Public Highway Route
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
Consulting Engineer Open Letter Public Welfare Civic Participation Non-Preclusion
prevails over
Consulting Engineer Principal Honest Objectivity Non-Partisan Alignment with City Official
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer-City Official Route D Alignment
Consulting Engineer Open Letter Sound Knowledge Foundation Compliance
prevails over
Consulting Engineer Principal Factual Grounding of Cost Estimate Critique and Route D Proposal
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
No State context committed for this edge.
Consulting Engineer Open Letter Public Welfare Civic Participation Non-Preclusion
prevails over
Consulting Engineer Open Letter Undisclosed Private Interest Compliance
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Consulting Engineer Prior Highway Connection
Consulting Engineer Open Letter Public Welfare Civic Participation Non-Preclusion
prevails over
Consulting Engineer Principal Prior-Work Financial Interest Disclosure in Public Letter
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
No State context committed for this edge.
Consulting Engineer Open Letter Temperate Non-Malicious Peer Critique Compliance
prevails over
Consulting Engineer Open Letter Adverse Peer Critique Non-Malicious Non-Violation Finding
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Consulting Engineer Prior Highway Connection
Open tensions recorded without a resolution:
Consulting Engineer Open Letter Temperate Non-Malicious Peer Critique Compliance vs Consulting Engineer Principal Self-Interest Non-Weaponization in Highway Department Cost Estimate Critique
Consulting Engineer Open Letter Undisclosed Private Interest Compliance vs Consulting Engineer Principal Public Route Commentary Civic Responsibility
Consulting Engineer Principal Prior-Work Financial Interest Disclosure in Public Letter vs Consulting Engineer Principal Public Route Commentary Civic Responsibility
Consulting Engineer Principal Self-Interest Non-Weaponization in Highway Department Cost Estimate Critique vs Highway Department Engineers Cost Estimate Honest Disagreement Non-Violation Recognition
What the board concluded
- Under the facts and circumstances of the case, it is ethical for an engineer to publicly express criticism of proposed highway routes prepared by engineers of the state highway department, and to propose an alternative route.
How comparable cases resolved the same tension
Consulting Engineer Principal Honest Objectivity Non-Partisan Alignment with City Official yields to Consulting Engineer Open Letter Public Welfare Civic Participation Non-Preclusion. The yielding obligation ("Consulting Engineer Principal Honest Objectivity Non-Partisan Alignment with City Official") recurs across cases; the obligation that overrides it and the context under which it yields differ case by case. This is the case-law move: not a single rule, but a family of context-indexed resolutions.
| Case | Obligation that prevailed | Yielding obligation | Context (defeasibleUnder) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
74-2
Conflict of Interest - Municipal Engineer
|
Dual-Role City Engineer Self-Review Non-Performance Structural Boundary — State Municipal Engineer Mandate Case | Small Municipality Dual-Role Arrangement Public Interest Justification Recognition — State Municipal Engineer Mandate Case | Small Municipality Resource Constraint Preventing Full-Time Engineer |
|
15-12
Engineer’s Obligation to Consider Feasible Options
|
Engineers A and B Landfill Professional Judgment Environmental Trade-Off | Engineers A and B Landfill Public Controversy Honest Objectivity | Landfill Design Regulatory Compliance with Residual Environmental Risk; Landfill Higher Contour Design Public Controversy |
|
22-3
Review of Other Engineer’s Work
|
Engineer C Prohibition on Reputation Injury Obligation Instance | Engineer C Solicited Competitor Critique Objectivity Obligation Instance | Engineer B Unaware of Covert Peer Evaluation; Engineer C Conflict of Interest in Procurement Competition |
|
93-4
Engineer's Duty As Interpreter Of Contract...
|
Engineer A Objectivity in Concrete Pour Dispute Technical Review | Engineer A Client Loyalty Non-Partisan Boundary BER 85-5 | Engineer A Competing Duties — Loyalty vs. Impartiality |
|
08-8
Selection of Firm—Promise of Future...
|
Engineer C Verbal Pre-Selection Promise Non-Issuance City X Future Project | Engineer C Good Intent Non-Justification Procurement Promise City X | Competitive Procurement Public Interest Alignment — City X; Engineer C Conflict of Interest from Promise; Engineer C Procurement Subversion — City X Future Contract; Engineer C Verbal Pre-Award Promise to Engineer A's Firm; Free and Open Competition Framework — City X Procurement Context; Informal Pre-Award Selection Commitment — Engineer C to Engineer A |