Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 73-9 (1973) · Endorsement of Project by Local Chapter
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
Local Chapter Independent Judgment Non-Deference to Engineers A and B Membership
prevails over
Local Chapter Independent Technical Endorsement Judgment Route Y
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Local Chapter Independent Judgment Presumption
Engineer A Citizen-Retained Route Study Adversarial Objectivity
prevails over
Engineers A and B Citizen-Retained Route Study Objectivity Obligation
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineers A and B Civic Advocacy Engagement
Engineers A and B Compensated Civic Engineering Participation Permissibility
prevails over
Engineers A and B Professional Affiliation Non-Exploitation Threshold Assessment
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineers A and B Professional Affiliation Advantage Threshold
- Engineers A and B Professional Society Endorsement Solicitation
Ethics Board Chapter Function Preservation Non-Restrictive Code Interpretation
prevails over
Engineers A and B Professional Affiliation Non-Exploitation Threshold Assessment
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineers A and B Professional Affiliation Advantage Threshold
- Engineers A and B Professional Society Endorsement Solicitation
Engineer A Public Controversy Honest Objectivity Route Study
prevails over
Engineer A Honest Disagreement With State Highway Department Route X
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Highway Route Technical Controversy
Featured
Engineer B Retained Advocate Chapter Presentation Full Disclosure
prevails over
Engineer B Retained Professional Society Endorsement Solicitation Permissibility
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Competing Duties Between Client Loyalty and Professional Society Objectivity
- Engineer B Firm-Partner Advocacy Alignment
- Engineer B Society Endorsement Solicitation
Open tensions recorded without a resolution:
Engineer A Citizen-Retained Route Study Adversarial Objectivity vs Engineer A Route Y Complete Comparative Analysis
Engineer B Public Interest Peer Critique Professional Deportment Chapter Presentation vs Engineer B Transparent Advocacy Through Legitimate Channels Chapter Presentation
Engineer B Retained Professional Society Endorsement Solicitation Permissibility vs Engineer B Voluntary Membership Ethics Acceptance Chapter Presentation
Engineers A and B Fact-Based Route Y Advocacy Obligation vs Engineers A and B Honest Disagreement With State Highway Department Route X Permissibility
Engineers A and B Professional Affiliation Non-Exploitation Threshold Assessment vs Engineers A and B Retainer Disclosure to Chapter Obligation
What the board concluded
- It is ethical for a partner of Engineer A to request the local chapter to endorse a project in which he is directly involved.
- It is ethical for members of the local chapter to take a public position on a controversial question in which a member of the chapter is involved.
How comparable cases resolved the same tension
Engineer B Retained Professional Society Endorsement Solicitation Permissibility yields to Engineer B Retained Advocate Chapter Presentation Full Disclosure. The yielding obligation ("Engineer B Retained Professional Society Endorsement Solicitation Permissibility") 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) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
86-4
Modification of Signed and Sealed Plans by...
|
Engineer B Successor Engineer Prior-Engineer Communication Before Redesign | Engineer B Discharged Engineer Review Without Notification Permissibility Case 82-5 | Engineer A Seal Retained on Engineer B Altered Grading Plans; Engineer A Seal Retained on Engineer B Altered Public Improvement Plans; Engineer B Undocumented Redesign on Engineer A Plans |
|
71-2
Brokerage of Engineering Services
|
Firms A and B Artfully Misleading Statement Prohibition in Procurement Response | Firms A and B Qualifications Non-Misrepresentation in Solicitation | -- |
|
93-3
Appropriate Notification And Review Of...
|
Engineer B Client Confidentiality Instruction Faithful Agent Compliance BER Case | Engineer B Peer Review Notification and Consent Fulfillment | Client Covert Review Instruction to Engineer B; Notification Duty vs. Faithful Agent Duty Conflict; Peer Review Confidentiality Agreement Absent — Engineer A Design Review |
|
65-12
Participation in Production of Unsafe Equipment
|
Company B Engineers Public Welfare Paramount Duty Fulfillment | Company B Engineers Competing Loyalty Resolution in Favor of Public Safety | Company B Engineers Competing Duties: Employer Loyalty vs. Public Safety |
|
94-8
Competence To Perform Foundation Design
|
Engineer B Cross-Discipline Structural Footing Assignment Acceptance Refusal Obligation | Engineer B PE License Non-Sufficiency Ethics Code Higher Standard Recognition Obligation | Engineer B Chemical Engineer Structural Footing Assignment Incompetence |