Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 01-1 (2001) · Employment—Questioning Ability Of Former Employer
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 B Self-Policing Peer Misconduct Reporting Obligation
prevails over
Engineer B Competitive Peer Misconduct Reporting Motivation Transparency
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Firm X Conflict of Interest State — Engineer A Competitive Conduct
Engineer A Competitor Reputation Injury Predictive Disparagement Violation
prevails over
Engineer A Artfully Misleading Client Representations
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A False Capacity Disparagement to Firm X Clients — Discussion Reaffirmation
- Engineer A Former Employer Client Solicitation with Capacity Disparagement
Engineer A Non-Competition Representation Fidelity Violation
prevails over
Engineer A Departing Engineer Client Solicitation Honesty Obligation
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Post-Employment Non-Compete Misrepresentation
Engineer A Self-Caused Staff Departure Non-Exploitation Violation
prevails over
Engineer A Competitor Reputation Injury Predictive Disparagement Violation
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Former Employer Client Solicitation with Capacity Disparagement
- Engineer A Non-Principal Employee Status at Firm X
Open tensions recorded without a resolution:
Engineer A Artfully Misleading Client Representations vs Engineer A Departing Engineer Client Solicitation Honesty Obligation
Engineer A Collegial Obligation Non-Disparagement of Firm X vs Engineer A Competitor Reputation Injury Predictive Disparagement Violation
Engineer A Competitor Reputation Injury Predictive Disparagement Violation vs Engineer A Non-Competition Representation Fidelity Violation
What the board concluded
- It was ethical for Engineer A to offer a position to Engineer C.
- It was not ethical for Engineer A to make representations that because Engineer C is going to be leaving Firm X to work for Firm Y, that Firm X will be “hard pressed” to perform successfully on its projects and that Firm X’s clients should hire Firm Y to perform engineering services.
How comparable cases resolved the same tension
Engineer B Competitive Peer Misconduct Reporting Motivation Transparency yields to Engineer B Self-Policing Peer Misconduct Reporting Obligation. The yielding obligation ("Engineer B Competitive Peer Misconduct Reporting Motivation Transparency") 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) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
22-4
Duty to Report Misconduct
|
Engineer A Proportionate Characterization State Q Proposal Analysis | Competitor Qualification Proposal Misconduct Reporting Obligation Engineer A State Q | Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Rule Stringency Differential; Engineer B State Q Attribution Ambiguity |
|
03-6
Employment—Duty To Disclose Revocation Of...
|
Engineer F Non-Engineering License Disciplinary History Employment Disclosure Failure | Engineer F Adjudicated Misconduct Employment Application Disclosure Failure | BER 75-5 Whole-Person Integrity Standard Activation; BER 97-11 vs Present Case Allegation-Adjudication Threshold Differential; Engineer F Adjudicated Wrongdoing Disclosure Obligation; Engineer F Cross-Domain License Revocation Non-Disclosure; Engineer F Employer Trust Undermined by Initial Non-Disclosure; Engineer F Employment Application Narrow Question Omission; Engineer F Fire Protection Safety Domain Heightened Materiality; Engineer F Narrow Application Question Exploitable Omission; Engineer F Non-PE License Revocation Integrity Relevance; Engineer F Privacy vs. Material Omission Tension |
|
80-1
Protest of Low Fee Proposal
|
Firms B and C Incomplete Knowledge Restraint in Fee Protest Characterization | Firms B and C Competitive Motivation Transparency in Protest | Firms B and C Bid Protest with Competitive Self-Interest |
|
75-5
Personal Misconduct
|
Engineer B Criminal Conviction Dishonesty Character Incompatibility Ethics Reporting | Engineer B Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction Recognition | Engineer B Public Professional Identity Exposure State; Engineer B Tax Fraud Conviction State |
|
02-11
Duty To Report Violation—Anonymous Complaint
|
Engineer A Anonymous Filing Permissibility Assessment BER Case | Engineer B Procedural Fairness Interest in Knowing Accuser Identity | Present Case Anonymous Complainant Identity Concealment Fairness |