Obligation-Conflict Resolution

Case 71-2 (1971) · Brokerage of Engineering Services

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 X Agency-Initiated Direct Engagement Non-Supplanting Permissibility prevails over Engineer X Prior Sub-Consultant Arrangement Conflict Review Before Independent Acceptance

the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)

the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):

Firms A and B No Definite Selection Steps — Anti-Supplanting Non-Activation

Engineer X Agency-Initiated Direct Engagement Non-Supplanting Permissibility prevails over Engineer X Supplanting Prohibition Definite-Steps Threshold Verification

the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):

Firms A and B No Definite Selection Steps — Anti-Supplanting Non-Activation

Firms A and B Pre-Acceptance Competence Self-Assessment Failure prevails over Firms A and B Substantive Prime Contribution Threshold Failure

the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):

Firms A and B Nominal Contribution Misrepresentation

Firm A Broker-Only Role Transparency and Specialist Referral Duty prevails over Firm A Nominal Prime Capability Misrepresentation in Government Solicitation

the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)

the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):

Nominal Subconsultant Arrangement — Firm A

Firms A and B Artfully Misleading Statement Prohibition in Procurement Response prevails over Firms A and B Qualifications Non-Misrepresentation in Solicitation

No State context committed for this edge.

Firms A and B Broker-Only Role Specialist Referral Obligation prevails over Firms A and B Substantive Prime Contribution Threshold Failure

the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)

the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):

Firms A and B Nominal Contribution Misrepresentation

Firm B Broker-Only Role Transparency and Specialist Referral Duty prevails over Firm B Nominal Prime Capability Misrepresentation in Government Solicitation

the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)

the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):

Nominal Subconsultant Arrangement — Firm B

Firm B Substantive Prime Contribution Threshold Failure prevails over Firm B Specialist-Retention Provision Contextual Reading Violation

the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)

No State context committed for this edge.

Firms A and B Honest Competence Representation Violation in Specialized Procurement prevails over Firms A and B Honorable Professional Conduct in Specialized Procurement

the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)

No State context committed for this edge.

Firm A Substantive Prime Contribution Threshold Failure prevails over Firm A Specialist-Retention Provision Contextual Reading Violation

the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)

No State context committed for this edge.

Open tensions recorded without a resolution: Engineer X Prior Sub-Consultant Arrangement Conflict Review Before Independent Acceptance vs Engineer X Supplanting Prohibition Definite-Steps Threshold Verification Firms A and B Artfully Misleading Statement Prohibition in Procurement Response vs Firms A and B Hypothetical Compliant Path Substantive Contribution Geographic Calibration

What the board concluded

It was not ethical for Firm A or Firm B to offer its services as the prime professional under the stated circumstances.
It would be ethical for Engineer X or his firm to accept the contract under the stated circumstances.

How comparable cases resolved the same tension

Engineer X Prior Sub-Consultant Arrangement Conflict Review Before Independent Acceptance yields to Engineer X Agency-Initiated Direct Engagement Non-Supplanting Permissibility. The yielding obligation ("Engineer X Prior Sub-Consultant Arrangement Conflict Review Before Independent Acceptance") 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)
67-1 Conflict of Interest Public Employment	Engineer Doe Single-Public-Role County Engineer Recommendation Sufficiency Conflict Prohibition Activation	Engineer Doe Triple-Role Self-Approval Structural Conflict Non-Acceptance	Doe County Engineer Submission Authority Over Own Private Plans; Doe Triple-Role Self-Approval Conflict
19-3 Expert Witness—Chair of Standards and...	Engineer A DOE Coal Bed Methane Governmental Employee Private Consulting Conflict	Engineer A DOT Traffic Engineer Airport Consulting Dual Role Conflict	Engineer A State DOT Airport Consulting Dual Role Conflict
82-6 Conflict of Interest - Expert Witness for...	Section III.4.b Specialized Knowledge Former Client Consent Prerequisite Engineer A Dam Failure	Simultaneous Dual-Role Adverse Advocacy Resignation Prerequisite Case 76-3 County Engineer	Engineer A Confidential Government Investigation Information Held
94-8 Competence To Perform Foundation Design	Engineer A Direct Confrontation of Engineer B Recommending Withdrawal Obligation	Engineer A Client and Authority Escalation Upon Engineer B Refusal Obligation	Engineer A Peer Competence Challenge Reporting Obligation Activated
94-5 Conflict Of Interest Providing Both City...	Firm A City-Retained Engineer Multi-Role Conflict Non-Engagement	BER-82-4 Engineer A Multi-Role Review-Recommendation Non-Decision Boundary	Firm A Multi-Role Structural Conflict — Design, Review, and Inspection for Same Parties