Obligation-Conflict Resolution - Expert Witness Testimony - Serving Plaintiffs And Defendants

Obligation-Conflict Resolution

Case 98-4 (1998) · Expert Witness Testimony - Serving Plaintiffs And Defendants

Case Precedents

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 Non-Advocate Objectivity Maintained Across ABC Manufacturing and Attorney X Engagements prevails over Engineer A Non-Absolute Former Client Loyalty Recognition in ABC Manufacturing Adverse Engagement

the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):

Engineer A Absolute Loyalty Boundary Determination
NSPE Conflict Disclosure Norm Evolution Active
Unrelated Matters Factual Separation Across Three Engagements

Engineer A Unrelated Matter Adverse Forensic Engagement Permissibility Assertion in ABC Manufacturing Product Liability Matter prevails over Engineer A Former Client Adversarial Proceeding Consent Prerequisite Non-Application Unrelated Matter

the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):

Unrelated Matters Factual Separation Across Three Engagements

Engineer A Expert Witness Engineering Non-Advocate Objectivity Across Multi-Party Engagements prevails over Engineer A Non-Absolute Former Client Loyalty Recognition in ABC Manufacturing Adverse Engagement

the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)

the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):

Engineer A Absolute Loyalty Boundary Determination
NSPE Conflict Disclosure Norm Evolution Active
Unrelated Matters Factual Separation Across Three Engagements

Engineer A Individual Engineering Judgment Autonomy Preservation in Adverse Former Client Engagement Decision prevails over Engineer A Non-Absolute Former Client Loyalty Recognition in ABC Manufacturing Adverse Engagement

the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)

the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):

Engineer A Absolute Loyalty Boundary Determination
NSPE Conflict Disclosure Norm Evolution Active
Unrelated Matters Factual Separation Across Three Engagements

Engineer A Unrelated Matter Adverse Forensic Engagement Permissibility Assertion in ABC Manufacturing Product Liability Matter prevails over Engineer A Switching Sides Prohibition Non-Application Recognition Unrelated Product Liability Matter

the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):

Unrelated Matters Factual Separation Across Three Engagements

Engineer A Conflict of Interest Appearance Non-Equivalence to Actual Conflict Recognition in Multi-Party Litigation prevails over Engineer A Multi-Matter Forensic Engagement Prior Relationship Proactive Disclosure to Attorney X

the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)

the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):

Engineer A Attorney X Plaintiff Retention Against ABC Manufacturing

Engineer A Engineer Autonomy Non-Subordination to Legal Profession Bar Analogy in Product Liability Engagement prevails over Engineer A Non-Absolute Former Client Loyalty Recognition in ABC Manufacturing Adverse Engagement

the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)

the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):

Engineer A Absolute Loyalty Boundary Determination
NSPE Conflict Disclosure Norm Evolution Active
Unrelated Matters Factual Separation Across Three Engagements

Featured

Engineer A Conflict of Interest Disclosure Evolution Compliance in Multi-Party Litigation History prevails over Engineer A Non-Absolute Former Client Loyalty Recognition in ABC Manufacturing Adverse Engagement

the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)

the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):

Engineer A Absolute Loyalty Boundary Determination
NSPE Conflict Disclosure Norm Evolution Active
Unrelated Matters Factual Separation Across Three Engagements

Open tensions recorded without a resolution: Engineer A Former Client Adversarial Proceeding Consent Prerequisite Non-Application Unrelated Matter vs Engineer A Unrelated Matter Adverse Engagement Permissibility Assertion ABC Manufacturing Product Liability Engineer A Multi-Matter Prior Relationship Proactive Disclosure to Attorney X vs Engineer A Non-Absolute Former Client Loyalty Boundary Recognition ABC Manufacturing Product Liability Engineer A Switching Sides Prohibition Non-Application Recognition Unrelated Product Liability Matter vs Engineer A Unrelated Matter Adverse Engagement Permissibility Assertion ABC Manufacturing Product Liability

What the board concluded

It was ethical for Engineer A to provide services to the parties in the manner described under the facts.

How comparable cases resolved the same tension

Engineer A Non-Absolute Former Client Loyalty Recognition in ABC Manufacturing Adverse Engagement yields to Engineer A Conflict of Interest Disclosure Evolution Compliance in Multi-Party Litigation History. The yielding obligation ("Engineer A Non-Absolute Former Client Loyalty Recognition in ABC Manufacturing Adverse Engagement") 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)
93-4 Engineer's Duty As Interpreter Of Contract...	Engineer A Contractual Dispute Resolver Impartiality BER 85-5	Engineer A Owner Loyalty Misapplication Non-Acquiescence BER 85-5	Owner Loyalty Claim Against Engineer A's Impartial Determination
14-8 Obligation to Former Employer and Former...	Former Client Adversarial Proceeding Consent Prerequisite — Engineer A Water Rights State Proceeding	Non-Absolute Former Client Loyalty Boundary — Engineer A Water Rights Proceeding Distinction	Engineer A Insider Knowledge of Opposing Analysis; Engineer A Prior Specialized Knowledge Participation Bar — Water Rights Proceeding
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
67-1 Conflict of Interest Public Employment	Engineer Doe Public Service Disclosure Non-Cure Structural Conflict Absolute Prohibition	Engineer Doe Axiomatic Professional Loyalty Non-Division	Doe Dual Public-Private Employment Structural Conflict
15-7 Confidentiality – Discussion with...	Engineer A Contractually Designated Dispute Resolver Impartiality BER 93-4	Engineer A Client Loyalty Non-Partisan Dispute Finding Boundary BER 93-4	Engineer A Construction Phase Contractual Impartiality Obligation; Owner-Contractor Dispute Requiring Engineer Adjudication